[Web-SIG] [proposal] merging jsonrpc into xmlrpc

Alan Kennedy pywebsig at xhaus.com
Tue Apr 8 23:01:01 CEST 2008


[Ronny]
>>  since json-rpc and xml-rpc basically do the same
>>  and the only difference is the content-type (json is more concise),
>>  i propose to create a single xml/json-rpc module.

[Graham]
>  The problem with the JSON-RPC 1.0 specification was that it wasn't
>  always as clear as could have been.
>
>  Unfortunately the JSON-RPC 1.1 draft specification didn't necessarily
>  make things better.

>  The JSON-RPC 1.1
>  specification was also never really completed and left out details
>  such as standard error codes etc that there were proposing be
>  specified.

All valid concerns.

I think that the JSON-RPC initiative lost its way a little. They tried
to model things such as encoding and decoding an object graph, using
object references, etc, which IMHO is a step too far for the usages
JSON-RPC would get, and is more CORBA than XML-RPC.

The maintainer of the JSON-RPC.org site was looking for someone to
take it over for a while; I think someone might have taken it over
last year.

[Graham]
>  Are you
>  prepared to go and test it with a sufficient range of clients to make
>  sure Python implemented server side interops properly?

Interestingly, the reference implementation for JSON-RPC is a server
written in python[1].

http://json-rpc.org/wiki/python-json-rpc

Perhaps python's best interests in this case are better served by
letting that reference implementation drive the JSON-RPC standards
process[2]?

If that is the case, then it is counter-productive to add a competing
module to the python standard library.

Regards,

Alan.

[1] But it's a shame they didn't write it on WSGI: then their services
could have run on the Google compute cloud ;-)

[2] Perhaps some pythonista from Web-SIG is most appropriate to advise
how JSON-RPC should move forward? After all, we're more accustomed to
server-side stuff than those javascript folks ;-)


More information about the Web-SIG mailing list