š
Original date posted:2011-12-19
šļø Summary of this message: The use of binary data is necessary for efficient processing, but JSON-RPC still serves a purpose for high-level language developers. Support should not be dropped entirely.
š Original message:I believe I'm missing something here. I was under the interpretation
that alias resolution was going the KISS route, of basically a single
HTTP request and response. How do you see binary data fitting into this?
I'm not going to pretend that I know all the details of the difficulties
that were encountered with JSON-RPC. But in the argument of developer
accessibility, it still serves a purpose. If JSON-RPC support is
removed, you will immediately lose a large pool of high level language
developers. I would hope that support would not be dropped, even if it
only remains as a secondary protocol with limited capability. Most high
level developers are only going to use it for basic functions anyhow.
On 12/19/2011 10:15 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> Because computers work with binary. I don't think anyone wants to implement a
> fully functional script assembler just to send funds.
>
> JSON-RPC won't go on forever. In any case, bitcoind's use of JSON-RPC is
> exactly why I (and many other developers) have come to the realization how
> poorly supported JSON really is. Most of the common languages do have a
> library, but almost all of them have one issue or another (particularly around
> the very undefined Number type).
Jordan Mack [ARCHIVE] /
npub18yā¦3txp2
2023-06-07 02:45:04
in reply to nevent1qā¦6a66
Author Public Key
npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2Published at
2023-06-07 02:45:04Event JSON
{
"id": "a32089ee3618865e16dd68f57aec32bb26df555a5447bd9299fdfc7f11b05e63",
"pubkey": "3900ae5aebfcedc10896ff09261ba18b16c6812fe8d8bea34333d56fdb4826d0",
"created_at": 1686105904,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"247922e9146ee6b54a634fc05ad7a489892c01debcd0510d008be95a47f6db80",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f0e4a1ca0b9daf58dc883b1695e843a850087bc545fc76853a4d54ddb5c53138",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2011-12-19\nšļø Summary of this message: The use of binary data is necessary for efficient processing, but JSON-RPC still serves a purpose for high-level language developers. Support should not be dropped entirely.\nš Original message:I believe I'm missing something here. I was under the interpretation \nthat alias resolution was going the KISS route, of basically a single \nHTTP request and response. How do you see binary data fitting into this?\n\nI'm not going to pretend that I know all the details of the difficulties \nthat were encountered with JSON-RPC. But in the argument of developer \naccessibility, it still serves a purpose. If JSON-RPC support is \nremoved, you will immediately lose a large pool of high level language \ndevelopers. I would hope that support would not be dropped, even if it \nonly remains as a secondary protocol with limited capability. Most high \nlevel developers are only going to use it for basic functions anyhow.\n\n\n\nOn 12/19/2011 10:15 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e Because computers work with binary. I don't think anyone wants to implement a\n\u003e fully functional script assembler just to send funds.\n\u003e\n\u003e JSON-RPC won't go on forever. In any case, bitcoind's use of JSON-RPC is\n\u003e exactly why I (and many other developers) have come to the realization how\n\u003e poorly supported JSON really is. Most of the common languages do have a\n\u003e library, but almost all of them have one issue or another (particularly around\n\u003e the very undefined Number type).",
"sig": "9815774ffb9ed0889da01a3b2afd927811971bbea06b07282123026567b9149d1a35e2b383e520156f7c468c4904645dcbea31a7383a60169f967c2633485c03"
}