Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

publib.boulder.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#31

Post by Stormbringer »

wulczer wrote: post #25

Not sure what all the fuss is about. It's actually neat to have a common way of changing JSON to XML, think of a web service that offers an API using our beloved JSON. But wait, we also want to provide an XML API! Let's design our own, ad-hoc, crappy mapping or... use that thing that everyone else is using. XML is out there, has lots of tools and libraries and is actually useful for some things. Not to mention the ar…

"the fuss" is because a lot of people jumped on the JSON bandwagon in order to get away from XML.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#32

Post by wulczer »

ericmoritz wrote: post #23
gte910h wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wsdatap/v3r8m1/inde... To allow you to use XSLT tools apparently.

XSLT and XPath is about the only reason I can see to use this. But, you know, how hard is: x.person.addresses[0].city? I guess XPath is easier when you probably have to do something like this: JSONObject json = (JSONObject) JSONSerializer.toJSON( jsonTxt ) String city = json.getJSONObject("person").getJSONArray("addresses").getJSONObject(0).getJSONObject("city"); Or however you'd do it in Java.

That's not hard, what's hard is

   //person[@alive="true"]/pets//dog[@hair="long"]/*/flea[@name]

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#33

Post by Stormbringer »

ericmoritz wrote: post #23
gte910h wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wsdatap/v3r8m1/inde... To allow you to use XSLT tools apparently.

XSLT and XPath is about the only reason I can see to use this. But, you know, how hard is: x.person.addresses[0].city? I guess XPath is easier when you probably have to do something like this: JSONObject json = (JSONObject) JSONSerializer.toJSON( jsonTxt ) String city = json.getJSONObject("person").getJSONArray("addresses").getJSONObject(0).getJSONObject("city"); Or however you'd do it in Java.

You appear to be confusing Java and Javascript.

JSON stands for Javascript Object Notation.

In Java the equivalent would simply be serialization.

NB: if XSLT and XPath is the solution, you've already lost.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#34

Post by derwiki »

pnathan wrote: post #13

IBM. I know you have smart people. Why don't you let them be smart?

IBM has done a great job of building an organization that protects itself from bad employees -- which, at that scale, you're BOUND to have. The problem that I noticed in my time there is that this is done at the cost of not letting the smart people be smart.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#35

Post by Groxx »

seiji wrote: post #14
buddydvd wrote: post #9

"In an XML Firewall service, JSONx can be used like other XML input." http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wsdatap/v3r8m1/inde... "An XML firewall is a specialized device used to protect applications exposed through XML based interfaces like WSDL and REST and scan XML traffic coming in and out of an organization. [snipped] XML Firewall is often used to validate XML traffic, control access to XML based resources,…

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_appliance and http://www.layer7tech.com/products/xml-accelerator Astounding, is it not?

You've (both) opened my eyes to a new and terrifying world. I don't know if I should thank you or just weep silently.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#36

Post by [deleted] »

wulczer wrote: post #32
ericmoritz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XSLT and XPath is about the only reason I can see to use this. But, you know, how hard is: x.person.addresses[0].city? I guess XPath is easier when you probably have to do something like this: JSONObject json = (JSONObject) JSONSerializer.toJSON( jsonTxt ) String city = json.getJSONObject("person").getJSONArray("addresses").getJSONObject(0).getJSONObject("city"); Or however you'd do it in Java.

That's not hard, what's hard is //person[@alive="true"]/pets//dog[@hair="long"]/*/flea[@name]

[deleted]

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#37

Post by amalcon »

drawkbox wrote: post #3

Why oh why... If it helps JSON invade the enterprise then ok, but why make a good thing bad.

This is actually one of the few things XML is very good at: embedding a document within another document.

I mean, it's not something you'd want to use all over the place, but there are situations where it might come in handy.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#38

Post by Stormbringer »

pnathan wrote: post #13

IBM. I know you have smart people. Why don't you let them be smart?

IBM has been divesting themselves of good programmers for a while now, probably at least a decade.

Their interns are steered away from programming, towards career paths that are perceived as adding value: e.g. consulting.

I suppose in theory this makes sense: have the smart locals figure out what is needed, write up some specs and then get the guys in Bangalore to bang (sic) it out for you.

In practice, it is an absolute dogs bollocks.

(1) The local IBMers have forgotten how to do anything in the real world. No, seriously. They can't even install a server to use for their own use as a test machine in less than 4-6 weeks.

(2) The Bangalore IBMers cannot code for shit. They are the second worst programmers I ever worked with (and the worst was a consultant Thoughtworker who was actively sabotaging the project). The ones who did the least got promoted. twitch

(3) They can't even maintain the software they wrote 5-10 years ago, they just don't make any effort to retain that knowledge.

(4) It might be different for US IBMers, but outside of the US the programmers got the shaft big time when the GFC hit. Stupid little things like (even if your business unit was profitable) you had to bring your own coffee and milk in to work because they stopped supplying them free.

Other than the above, IBM is just like any other large organization.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#39

Post by Stormbringer »

derwiki wrote: post #34
pnathan wrote: post #13

IBM. I know you have smart people. Why don't you let them be smart?

IBM has done a great job of building an organization that protects itself from bad employees -- which, at that scale, you're BOUND to have. The problem that I noticed in my time there is that this is done at the cost of not letting the smart people be smart.

Mmmm.... no. IBM has built an organization that protects the bad employees. Business Analysts that cannot analyse anything to save themselves for instance. Coders in Bangalore that cannot code and have shitty communication skills (but marvellously developed excuse making skills). Server admins that don't know how to install and set up servers.

I agree with the not letting smart people be smart... but it's not even that. If a project has caught fire and is burning down, they don't let the people with the firefighting skills come in and save it.

Partly it is an incentivization problem. That is, there isn't any incentive to be efficient and good at what you do. Especially if you're billing your people out as consultants by the hour and somebody else is paying for it. This is a two level problem. The individuals have no incentive to make themselves genuinely better at what they do (there are personal development programs in IBM which people are encouraged to take, but that just pushes them even faster towards positions where they don't actually do anything useful - e.g. management), and the organization as a whole actually loses money if it becomes more efficient.

Re: JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML

#40

Post by wulczer »

Stormbringer wrote: post #31
wulczer wrote: post #25

Not sure what all the fuss is about. It's actually neat to have a common way of changing JSON to XML, think of a web service that offers an API using our beloved JSON. But wait, we also want to provide an XML API! Let's design our own, ad-hoc, crappy mapping or... use that thing that everyone else is using. XML is out there, has lots of tools and libraries and is actually useful for some things. Not to mention the ar…

"the fuss" is because a lot of people jumped on the JSON bandwagon in order to get away from XML.

That's fine for them. My question stands: what's wrong with someone proposing a generic way of transforming JSON to XML?
Post reply on HN