From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julian Phillips Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] JSON/XML output for scripting interface Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:45:52 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20100411112928.80010.1786.julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: , Eric Raymond , Junio C Hamano To: Sverre Rabbelier X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 11 19:46:09 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O11ER-0006T2-Sk for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:46:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752634Ab0DKRpz (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:45:55 -0400 Received: from positron.quantumfyre.co.uk ([213.165.84.138]:50872 "EHLO positron.quantumfyre.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752484Ab0DKRpy (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:45:54 -0400 Received: from reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk (reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk [212.159.54.234]) by positron.quantumfyre.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7CF819C6D7; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:45:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070E420CF4D; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:45:53 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at reaper Received: from reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id G2NHzDYCBJ6h; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:45:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from webmail.quantumfyre.co.uk (reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk [192.168.0.2]) by reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55A5554CB; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:45:52 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: X-Sender: julian@quantumfyre.co.uk User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-rc1 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:34:13 +0200, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > Heya, > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 19:30, Julian Phillips > wrote: >> you'll have to tell me what you think. > > The patch does look fairly simple, but I worry that not all commands > will be so simple, that is, they might not all have such an easy point > where you can hook in a different output method? Or am I seeing bears > where there are none? I think that there probably are commands where it will be more work to integrate the output - but I think that is probably more to do with the structure of the current code than the API of the new. Does it make a difference what the API of the new output code is if there isn't currently a sensible hook-in point? If code has been written without the expectation that the output format could be changed then the effort to add a new output format could be considerably more than for status or ls-tree. However, with the frontend/backend design hopefully we only have to endure the effort once to get multiple output formats. -- Julian