Re: XML and JSON

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Walden H. Leverich wrote:
> > Yet, and that's the problem, the
> > future lies with the database...
> >     
>
> Not sure I see the problem though. If you're using JSON between business
> partners then it's more important that it be standardized. But if you're
> only using JSON so simply shuttle data back and forth between server-UI
> and client-UI code, then you don't really need to worry about
> future-proofing the JSON.
>   

Not only that, but there's really also nothing inherently future proof 
about XML.  Sure, you have a document in which we both agree that a 
client is eight numeric digits, but when that changes to ten alpha, or 
20 unicode, then XML isn't going to protect your investment any more 
than JSON.  In fact, arguably JSON is better because it has implicit 
conversion routines, and so as long as both sides change, there's no 
need for a schema to tell us what we agree on.

Note that I'm not dissing the idea of a standardized schema.  It's just 
that the transport mechanism doesn't do that for you; it's a higher 
level standard that does that.  And those standards move glacially; 
we've had EDI standards for decades, and we still have interop issues.  
At the same time, I think we all have a sort of fuzzy consensus that the 
more standardized the request needs to be (and that typically goes up as 
the peers are less tightly bound), the more a schema is needed, and thus 
the more the inherent inefficiency of XML is offset by the 
standardization.  But when we're talking about small packets of 
information, such as between UI and business logic, JSON has a definite 
advantage.

As always: TBTFTJ.

Joe