Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: JSONRequest

Expand Messages
  • zackthom
    Deos JSON Request allow a true POST today? I reviewed your docs, and there is some great information here, but you do not discuss how to do a POST without
    Message 1 of 22 , Apr 18, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Deos JSON Request allow a true POST today?

      I reviewed your docs, and there is some great information here, but you
      do not discuss how to do a POST without xmlHtpp.

      I am interested in a remote scripting call that allowes me to send
      HEADERS.

      Is this a proposed new standard or a library implmentation? How can I
      test it?
    • John David Duncan
      Hi, I m interested in implementing the server side of JSONRequest, and I m a bit confused by the JSONRequest.get description in the proposal. The sample server
      Message 2 of 22 , Sep 22, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        I'm interested in implementing the server side of JSONRequest, and
        I'm a bit confused by the JSONRequest.get description in the proposal.

        The sample server response says:

        HTTP/1.1 200 OK
        Content-Type: application/jsonrequest
        Content-Length: xxxx
        JSONRequest: 6

        What is the "JSONRequest: 6" header? Is 6 the request serial number?
        (and if so, how did the server get the serial number from the client?)

        Thanks,

        JD
      • Douglas Crockford
        ... The current proposal can be found at http://json.org/JSONRequest.html
        Message 3 of 22 , Sep 22, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In json@yahoogroups.com, John David Duncan <john.david.duncan@...>
          wrote:

          > I'm interested in implementing the server side of JSONRequest, and
          > I'm a bit confused by the JSONRequest.get description in the proposal.

          The current proposal can be found at http://json.org/JSONRequest.html
        • John David Duncan
          ... Yep, that s the one I m referring to. Is the JSONRequest header supposed to be there, in this response? HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type:
          Message 4 of 22 , Sep 22, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >> I'm interested in implementing the server side of JSONRequest, and
            >> I'm a bit confused by the JSONRequest.get description in the
            >> proposal.
            >
            > The current proposal can be found at http://json.org/JSONRequest.html

            Yep, that's the one I'm referring to. Is the "JSONRequest" header
            supposed to be there, in this response?


            HTTP/1.1 200 OK
            Content-Type: application/jsonrequest
            Content-Length: xxxx
            JSONRequest: 6



            JD
          • Douglas Crockford
            ... I see what you mean. No, that isn t supposed to be there. I have corrected it. Thank you.
            Message 5 of 22 , Sep 22, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In json@yahoogroups.com, John David Duncan <john.david.duncan@...>
              wrote:
              > Is the "JSONRequest" header
              > supposed to be there, in this response?
              >
              >
              > HTTP/1.1 200 OK
              > Content-Type: application/jsonrequest
              > Content-Length: xxxx
              > JSONRequest: 6

              I see what you mean. No, that isn't supposed to be there.
              I have corrected it. Thank you.
            • John David Duncan
              ... Thanks! I have one more thought about the proposal. The Firefox plugin chooses to send an Accept: application/ jsonrequest header with the request, and
              Message 6 of 22 , Oct 10, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sep 22, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:

                >> Is the "JSONRequest" header
                >> supposed to be there, in this response?
                >> ...
                > I see what you mean. No, that isn't supposed to be there.
                > I have corrected it. Thank you.


                Thanks! I have one more thought about the proposal.

                The Firefox plugin chooses to send an "Accept: application/
                jsonrequest" header with the request, and I agree with this idea.
                The proposal says that if the request is application/jsonrequest,
                then the response must also be application/jsonrequest; the Accept
                header spells out this requirement plainly in HTTP. In my opinion,
                the header should be mandatory.


                JD
              • Douglas Crockford
                ... You re right.
                Message 7 of 22 , Oct 11, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In json@yahoogroups.com, John David Duncan <john.david.duncan@...>
                  wrote:

                  > The Firefox plugin chooses to send an "Accept: application/
                  > jsonrequest" header with the request, and I agree with this idea.
                  > The proposal says that if the request is application/jsonrequest,
                  > then the response must also be application/jsonrequest; the Accept
                  > header spells out this requirement plainly in HTTP. In my opinion,
                  > the header should be mandatory.

                  You're right.
                • Michael Schwarz
                  Hi, one thing I didn t get a answer yet about security: I expect that NTLM is not working with JSONRequest, too, is that correct? Some other questions while
                  Message 8 of 22 , Oct 14, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi,

                    one thing I didn't get a answer yet about security: I expect that NTLM is
                    not working with JSONRequest, too, is that correct?

                    Some other questions while implementing a client plugin: must there be a
                    maximum timeout value? I think that it makes no sence to run requests longer
                    than 10 seconds. What about the user-agent string, will this be sent or not?
                    Why only send the domain, doesn't the complete Uri makes sence?

                    And one last question: does the JSON server need to support HTTP 1.0, or is
                    it mandatory to support HTTP 1.1 only?

                    Michael



                    On 10/11/07, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In json@yahoogroups.com <json%40yahoogroups.com>, John David Duncan
                    > <john.david.duncan@...>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > > The Firefox plugin chooses to send an "Accept: application/
                    > > jsonrequest" header with the request, and I agree with this idea.
                    > > The proposal says that if the request is application/jsonrequest,
                    > > then the response must also be application/jsonrequest; the Accept
                    > > header spells out this requirement plainly in HTTP. In my opinion,
                    > > the header should be mandatory.
                    >
                    > You're right.
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    --
                    Best regards | Schöne Grüße
                    Michael

                    Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
                    Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

                    http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
                    http://www.ajaxpro.info/

                    Skype: callto:schwarz-interactive
                    MSN IM: passport@...


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • collin_jackson
                    ... Can you tell us which platform you are developing a client plugin for? ... The browser s security policy isn t granular enough to separate URIs into
                    Message 9 of 22 , Oct 14, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schwarz" <michael.schwarz@...>
                      wrote:
                      > Some other questions while implementing a client plugin:

                      Can you tell us which platform you are developing a client plugin for?

                      > Why only send the domain, doesn't the complete Uri makes sence?

                      The browser's security policy isn't granular enough to separate URIs
                      into separate security contexts, so it would be easy for a site to
                      spoof any URI within the page's a given domain by injecting script
                      tags into other pages. Also, in Firefox (for example) there are many
                      scenarios where a page has URI that does not specify a domain
                      (about:blank, or a javascript: URI) yet the page does have a domain
                      according to the browser.

                      To make this header match the browser's security policy, it would be
                      possible to set a header of the form scheme://domain:port (with no
                      path included), but I'm not sure whether this is necessary.
                    • Michael Schwarz
                      Hi, ... I write one for Mac and Windows, well, it is not a real plugin, but a way to integrate it in you web pages. ... What I thought was pages like
                      Message 10 of 22 , Oct 14, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi,

                        On 10/14/07, collin_jackson <yahoo@...> wrote:
                        > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schwarz" <michael.schwarz@...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > Some other questions while implementing a client plugin:
                        >
                        > Can you tell us which platform you are developing a client plugin for?

                        I write one for Mac and Windows, well, it is not a real plugin, but a
                        way to integrate it in you web pages.



                        > > Why only send the domain, doesn't the complete Uri makes sence?
                        >
                        > The browser's security policy isn't granular enough to separate URIs
                        > into separate security contexts, so it would be easy for a site to
                        > spoof any URI within the page's a given domain by injecting script
                        > tags into other pages. Also, in Firefox (for example) there are many
                        > scenarios where a page has URI that does not specify a domain
                        > (about:blank, or a javascript: URI) yet the page does have a domain
                        > according to the browser.
                        >

                        What I thought was pages like aol.com/users/xxxx or
                        t-online.de/home/xxxx. Where is the "domain" specified, I thought it
                        will use the Web browsers location always, which in my mind is not
                        speficic enough.

                        Michael



                        > To make this header match the browser's security policy, it would be
                        > possible to set a header of the form scheme://domain:port (with no
                        > path included), but I'm not sure whether this is necessary.
                        >
                        >



                        --
                        Best regards | Schöne Grüße
                        Michael

                        Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
                        Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

                        http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
                        http://www.ajaxpro.info/

                        Skype: callto:schwarz-interactive
                        MSN IM: passport@...
                      • Douglas Crockford
                        I have updated the JSONRequest proposal, removing the Origin feature. I have been persuaded that it can encourage bad practice.
                        Message 11 of 22 , Feb 13 2:07 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I have updated the JSONRequest proposal, removing the Origin feature.
                          I have been persuaded that it can encourage bad practice.

                          http://json.org/JSONRequest.html
                        • pigwin32
                          ... This question may have been asked previously but a quick search didn t turn up anything. Why does JSONRequest only support GET/POST and propose a new
                          Message 12 of 22 , Feb 16 12:10 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > I am proposing a new mechanism for doing data transport in Ajax/Comet
                            > applications. It is called JSONRequest. It is a minimal communications
                            > facility that can be exempted from the Same Origin Policy.
                            >
                            > You can read about it here: http://json.org/JSONRequest.html
                            >

                            This question may have been asked previously but a quick search didn't
                            turn up anything. Why does JSONRequest only support GET/POST and
                            propose a new CANCEL request? What of PUT and DELETE? I can see how
                            JSONRequest would be extremely useful for RESTful web services and I'm
                            curious as to why you are proposing yet another protocol on top of
                            HTTP when HTTP already provides the necessary verbs and
                            exceptions/error codes. Wouldn't it be expedient to work within the
                            existing HTTP specification? My apologies if this has already been
                            addressed, I've arrived a little bit late to the discussion.

                            - Dave
                          • Tatu Saloranta
                            ... I am not a REST expert, but isn t PUT used to store given payload (in this case, request in form of Json), and DELETE just ignore payload? Meaning that
                            Message 13 of 22 , Feb 16 11:51 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:10 AM, pigwin32 <pigwin32@...> wrote:
                              > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >> I am proposing a new mechanism for doing data transport in Ajax/Comet
                              >> applications. It is called JSONRequest. It is a minimal communications
                              >> facility that can be exempted from the Same Origin Policy.
                              >>
                              >> You can read about it here: http://json.org/JSONRequest.html
                              >>
                              >
                              > This question may have been asked previously but a quick search didn't
                              > turn up anything. Why does JSONRequest only support GET/POST and
                              > propose a new CANCEL request? What of PUT and DELETE? I can see how
                              > JSONRequest would be extremely useful for RESTful web services and I'm
                              > curious as to why you are proposing yet another protocol on top of
                              > HTTP when HTTP already provides the necessary verbs and
                              > exceptions/error codes. Wouldn't it be expedient to work within the
                              > existing HTTP specification? My apologies if this has already been
                              > addressed, I've arrived a little bit late to the discussion.

                              I am not a REST expert, but isn't PUT used to store given payload (in
                              this case, request in form of Json), and DELETE just ignore payload?
                              Meaning that such operations via JSONRequest wouldn't make much sense;
                              after all, you can call PUT with appropriate content type anyway, and
                              DELETE wouldn't require one.

                              That is: what would be useful semantics for such operations? (same
                              could be asked of GET -- but I assume that's for manual testing via
                              browser)

                              I guess case could be made that for completeness sake these verbs
                              should be supported.

                              -+ Tatu +-
                            • Fang Yidong
                              Hello Tatu, While I was googling JSON.simple usage, I occasionally find JsonSimpleDriver.java in svn of codehaus, and the benchmark results, comparing with
                              Message 14 of 22 , Feb 19 11:08 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello Tatu,

                                While I was googling JSON.simple usage, I occasionally find JsonSimpleDriver.java in svn of codehaus, and the benchmark results, comparing with Jackson and other libraries. I think that it's your work?

                                The throughput of Jackson is high definitely and I really think Jackson is an excellent StAX JSON parser.

                                I am writing to you because I'd like to share some of my opinions on the testing itself. I know that you haven't pulished the results yet, here's just some discussions.

                                Here's my opinions:
                                1. I think different libraries accept different inputs, such as a byte array, a string, a inputstream or a reader, so the preparation of such input objects should be prepared in the warm up stage, not the running.

                                2. I think the iteration of the resulting graph is not a part of the parser and should not be put in the run method, but some minor operations can be performed to verified that the result is a correct one.

                                3. Could you also help to test the SAX-like interface of JSON.simple in the way of JacksonDriverStreaming.java did? 

                                I think your work will definitely help to improve the qualities of all JSON libraries.

                                Thanks.

                                Yidong Fang




                                ___________________________________________________________
                                好玩贺卡等你发,邮箱贺卡全新上线!
                                http://card.mail.cn.yahoo.com/

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Fang Yidong
                                Sorry this message is intended to send to Tatu only. My bad. Since the result is not published yet, let s discuss it privately. Hello Tatu, While I was
                                Message 15 of 22 , Feb 19 11:14 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sorry this message is intended to send to Tatu only. My bad.
                                  Since the result is not published yet, let's discuss it privately.












                                  Hello Tatu,



                                  While I was googling JSON.simple usage, I occasionally find JsonSimpleDriver. java in svn of codehaus, and the benchmark results, comparing with Jackson and other libraries. I think that it's your work?



                                  The throughput of Jackson is high definitely and I really think Jackson is an excellent StAX JSON parser.



                                  I am writing to you because I'd like to share some of my opinions on the testing itself. I know that you haven't pulished the results yet, here's just some discussions.



                                  Here's my opinions:

                                  1. I think different libraries accept different inputs, such as a byte array, a string, a inputstream or a reader, so the preparation of such input objects should be prepared in the warm up stage, not the running.



                                  2. I think the iteration of the resulting graph is not a part of the parser and should not be put in the run method, but some minor operations can be performed to verified that the result is a correct one.



                                  3. Could you also help to test the SAX-like interface of JSON.simple in the way of JacksonDriverStream ing.java did? 



                                  I think your work will definitely help to improve the qualities of all JSON libraries.



                                  Thanks.



                                  Yidong Fang




















                                  ___________________________________________________________
                                  好玩贺卡等你发,邮箱贺卡全新上线!
                                  http://card.mail.cn.yahoo.com/

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Tatu Saloranta
                                  ... Hi there! Yes, that is true. ... Sure, thank you for your input. I hadn t yet published it, but it is of course public from the blog. ... Hmmh. I don t
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Feb 19 11:46 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
                                    > Hello Tatu,
                                    >
                                    > While I was googling JSON.simple usage, I occasionally find JsonSimpleDriver.java in svn of codehaus, and the benchmark results, comparing with Jackson and other libraries. I think that it's your work?

                                    Hi there! Yes, that is true.

                                    >
                                    > The throughput of Jackson is high definitely and I really think Jackson is an excellent StAX JSON parser.
                                    >
                                    > I am writing to you because I'd like to share some of my opinions on the testing itself. I know that you haven't pulished the results yet, here's just some discussions.

                                    Sure, thank you for your input. I hadn't yet published it, but it is
                                    of course public from the blog.

                                    >
                                    > Here's my opinions:
                                    > 1. I think different libraries accept different inputs, such as a byte array, a string, a inputstream or a reader, so the preparation of such input objects should be prepared in the warm up stage, not the running.

                                    Hmmh. I don't think I fully agree, but I agree in that it depends on use case.

                                    For me, the use case is always getting Json from an external source
                                    (network request, from file system), and hence input is naturally a
                                    stream of bytes. So if a library just takes a String, it must be
                                    constructed from bytes.
                                    I did give shortcuts for some parsers so that there was no need to
                                    read from the stream, so in a way some parsers benefited from the
                                    setup (from my perspective).

                                    It is possible that other use cases could be ones where a String would
                                    be needed anyway (like perhaps reading it from a DB), but for me this
                                    is not the case.

                                    > 2. I think the iteration of the resulting graph is not a part of the parser and should not be put in the run method, but some minor operations can be performed to verified that the result is a correct one.

                                    I think needs to be, because otherwise you can not do anything of use;
                                    and parsers could optimize away some processing.
                                    I don't think results would differ a lot though, most parsers do
                                    handle all the data independent of traversal. I can probably make this
                                    configurable to see what the difference is.

                                    > 3. Could you also help to test the SAX-like interface of JSON.simple in the way of JacksonDriverStreaming.java did?

                                    Ah yes. Apologies for not trying it out -- I forgot that json.simple
                                    does in fact have a streaming interface. I can add that, and make it
                                    the main interface.

                                    > I think your work will definitely help to improve the qualities of all JSON libraries.

                                    Thank you, and thanks for feedback!

                                    -+ Tatu +-
                                  • Tatu Saloranta
                                    ... (took the discussion offline, but if anyone is interested in what results we are discussing, those are at:
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Feb 20 9:12 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
                                      > Sorry this message is intended to send to Tatu only. My bad.
                                      > Since the result is not published yet, let's discuss it privately.

                                      (took the discussion offline, but if anyone is interested in what
                                      results we are discussing, those are at:

                                      http://www.cowtowncoder.com/blog/archives/2009/02/entry_204.html

                                      I will be making some updates; and if any owners of other packages
                                      have suggestions, let me know as well. Benchmarks are hard to do well
                                      with different use cases and emphasis, so at least I want to document
                                      presumptions and biases.

                                      -+ Tatu +-
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.