Hi everyone,
Lots of great comments. Thanks. I will take them into account in the next flavor of the example I had written. The example given was indeed meant to be pseudo-code.
Fundamental points from our conversation so far:
(a) the JSON request/response should be a reflection of the XML version. One can translate in either direction without any loss
(b) Use of constants vs. use of assumed (default) values: I still think assuming values is nicer. It makes creating requests by hand so much easier. It reduces the size of a request as well and increases readability.
(c) short attribute Ids vs. longer (fully qualified ones): Danny you say that shorter names would lead to possible clashes. But I have never run into that issue w/ customers who tend to live in a closed world where all attributes are clearly defined.
My example, in fact, should have skipped the datatype and the issuer (as Ray pointed out later).
I will get back to you w/ additional work in the coming weeks. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment, I won't be able to attend today's call.
Cheers,
David.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM, <> wrote:
David,
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of David Brossard
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:21 AM
To: xacml
Subject: [xacml] Suggestions for a JSON representation of the XACML request - JSON profile
> I've had a look at the reference definition of a XACML request defined in 5.42 Element <Request> on line 2726 of the specification PDF.
>
> I want to make a simple JSON representation.
Did you lo
ok at existing XML->JSON mapping approaches?
http://wiki.open311.org/index.php?title=JSON_and_XML_Conversion
Thanks,
Ray
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
--
David Brossard, M.Eng, SCEA, CSTP
VP Product Marketing & Customer Relations
+46(0)760 25 85 75
Axiomatics AB
Skeppsbron 40
S-111 30 Stockholm, Sweden
http://www.linkedin.com/companies/536082
http://www.axiomatics.com
http://twitter.com/axiomatics
