Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] JSON/XML output for scripting interface

[Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>]

Heya,

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 19:45, Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> wrote:
> 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?

No you are right, the existance of such hard-to-change commands does
not really affect the API design in this case, although I think it
might be a good idea to try out at least one such command before
committing to using this API. For example, it might turn out that
there's an elegant way to hook in, or that adding all those if
(output_style != OUTPUT_NORMAL)  statements gets cluttery and there
should be a different way to do things instead.

> 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.

I'm curious to see where this will lead us :).

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier