From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38496)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1ZtbnQ-0005aJ-T3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:38:45 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1ZtbnN-0005vj-Lg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:38:44 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]:33863)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1ZtbnN-0005ve-FQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:38:41 -0500
Received: by wmff134 with SMTP id f134so84417841wmf.1
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 05:38:40 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
References: <5633C8EC.8030309@redhat.com>
	<874mh44wvs.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56378572.5020203@redhat.com>
	<87egg8nro5.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <5637C2B3.6090609@redhat.com>
	<87egg7lffd.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<20151103081917.1d348ad1@redhat.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <5638B8DE.6020709@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:38:38 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151103081917.1d348ad1@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: libyajl for JSON
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>



On 03/11/2015 14:19, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > The value proposition of replacing our flawed JSON parser isn't in
> > saving big on maintenance, it's in not having to find and fix its flaws.
> > 
> > If the replacement needs a lot of work to fit our needs, the value
> > proposition becomes negative.
> > 
> > A JSON parser shouldn't require much maintenance, as JSON is simple,
> > doesn't change, and parsing has few system dependencies.
> 
> Let me suggest this crazy idea: have you guys considered breaking
> compatibility?

Can you explain why that would make sense? :)  (Especially since there
is another extension---JSON5---that does exactly what we're doing, so it
probably wasn't that stupid an idea).

Paolo