From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Todd Gill Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] add option to output JSON for multipathd command Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 09:52:11 -0400 Message-ID: <572CA18B.70600@redhat.com> References: <1462393428-13929-1-git-send-email-tgill@redhat.com> <572A9F17.5080208@sandisk.com> Reply-To: tgill@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <572A9F17.5080208@sandisk.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: dm-devel@redhat.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids On 05/04/2016 09:17 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 05/04/16 13:23, Todd Gill wrote: >> I had earlier sent an email to dm-devel proposing we add a feature >> in multipathd to output multipath map topology in JSON format. This >> patch contains to the code for that feature. >> >> Having an option for the CLI to output in JSON would allow higher >> level applications to more easily monitor/manage multipath. >> >> I thought it was best to take advantage of some of the existing >> snprintf_xxx functions rather than adding a library dependency >> to multipathd. >> >> Will add code for groups next if this is accepted. > > XML is better standardized than JSON, so why to use JSON? An overview of > the advantages of XML is available on > http://www.yegor256.com/2015/11/16/json-vs-xml.html. A good overview of > JSON and also of some of its disadvantages is available on > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON. > I was on the fence between XML and JSON. I think JSON is more simple. I'm not sure we'd need the features listed as advantages in the first link you sent. > Sorry that I missed your previous e-mail about this topic. > No problem. Thanks for the feedback. I'm interested in making the data easily available to higher level applications. So, any common/easily consumed data format would be fine. Todd