Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
JSON-RPC
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Status of 2.0 WD?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Roland Koebler  
View profile  
 More options Mar 8 2008, 1:29 pm
From: Roland Koebler <r.koeb...@yahoo.de>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 19:29:31 +0100
Local: Sat, Mar 8 2008 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: [json-rpc] Status of 2.0 WD?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
hi,

> Here's my understanding so far:

>  * 1.1: abandoned
right.
>  * 1.2: heavily edited, given as RC1, and then renamed to 2.0
>  * 2.0: revised version of 1.2RC1

the proposals for 1.2 and 2.0 were created at the same time, so 2.0
isn't really a revised version of 1.2.

> (I'm surprised that 2.0 is not BC with 1.0,

It can't, because it adds new functionality.

> though I believe that
> a well-written server could use the Request to determine which
> specification to follow.)

yes, it can, and this fact is also mentioned in the "2.0 WD"

> Next, I saw a call to approve 1.2RC1/2.0 at the end of February, but
> there's no clear indication in the archives as to what the consensus
> was, if any. Could somebody clarify?

The consensus is, that the current 2.0 WD is good, and no further
modifications to the WD are necessary.
I think we could approve it -- but there wasn't anyone here who pushed
the approval ;).

> Next, I see a document for "JSON Schema Service Descriptor", but it is
> unclear if this is the format to use for system.describe

yes, it was discussed to use it for system.describe.
but it has not yet been decided, how all the "system.*" should look like.

> Finally, should I even consider anything other than 1.0 at this time?

1.0 is the only "valid" specification at the moment.

but I personally think that there won't be any modifications to the 2.0WD,
and that it will be approved as it is. but I cannot guarantee this.

so, I would suggest to implement 1.0, and extend it as soon as 2.0 is
released. (I already implemented a JSON-RPC client and server for 1.0
and 2.0 in python, which is working really well.)

> My inclination is not to, but to consider some forward compatibility
> issues such as sending HTTP 204 responses for notifications,

remember that HTTP has *nothing* to do with JSON-RPC. JSON-RPC and the
used transport are completely independent.

regards,
Roland


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google