tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2906216102316790874.post6658391894471505007..comments2008-11-06T09:40:10.701-08:00Comments on Sincerely, Management: If its not asynchronous yet, make iteleddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12829844320869028742noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2906216102316790874.post-50313870746568062042008-11-06T09:40:00.000-08:002008-11-06T09:40:00.000-08:00@john_brennan I apologize, hate is a strong word. ...@john_brennan I apologize, hate is a strong word. I dislike it for all the hype and the fact that its wrong for most applications but people use it anyways. json works for small things, small amounts of data. but when you are storing a mass amount of data that has to be shared among apps, some of which are NOT web based, the json is aweful. it also has terrible unicode support (something I have to deal with a lot) and is very finicky (my users like to use all kinds of apostrophes, not just ' and "). not that xml is always the right choice either of course :)Leddyhttp://me.eleddy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2906216102316790874.post-9461412717491502712008-11-06T09:25:00.000-08:002008-11-06T09:25:00.000-08:00@eleddy:hate json.. do tell why?i get that XML mak...@eleddy:<BR/>hate json.. do tell why?<BR/>i get that XML makes more sense in certain cases like when having to talk in SOAP and to legacy systems, but because JSON is essentially serialized JS objects, it's dead simple (less work, more readable) for client side scripting. Now that more apps are being powered by javascript almost completely there is even a better push to KISS (keep it simple stupid).<BR/><BR/>But.. I'd love to hear why you hate json... ;)John Brennanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09050140978925677934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2906216102316790874.post-67454264585219457852008-11-06T07:52:00.000-08:002008-11-06T07:52:00.000-08:00@john_brennan I still have to write a blog post on...@john_brennan I still have to write a blog post on why I hate json :) top three reasons, #1 being that thats what mcmorgan chose when he started things and often that determines a lot. Plus we are working with xml only so a native xmldb fits. #2 is that this is a huge app that has to be compatible through apis other than rest including soap and com. #3 is scalability. <BR/><BR/>I have never used couchdb but it looks interesting, however not appropriate for what we are working with. I am still working with twisted but your initial thoughts were mine too. I'm sure I'll write something when its all over :)eleddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12829844320869028742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2906216102316790874.post-34491416792543347142008-11-04T17:14:00.000-08:002008-11-04T17:14:00.000-08:00why XMLDB? are you using XML for transport? Why ...why XMLDB? are you using XML for transport? Why not JSON+CouchDB or some other doc store?<BR/><BR/>I'm interested to hear your thoughts on Twisted. From their doc it seems like they have a lot going on.. but they are also managing/abstracting a lot...John Brennanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09050140978925677934noreply@blogger.com