[occi-wg] JSON Rendering

[Gary Mazz]

Comment below

On 2/23/2012 6:29 AM, Ralf Nyren wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:16:28 +0000, "Feldhaus, Florian"
> <florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de>  wrote:
>
>> I'm currently reviewing the rendering of entities. I was wondering, if
> we
>> could use "Collection" for rendering single entities as well. On the
> other
>> hand, we might as well drop the Collection completely and just use an
> array
>> of entity renderings. I would prefer using the term entities, as the
>> rendering is then similar to the rendering of the categories (with
> "kinds"
>> and "mixing"). What do you think?
> I used the word "collection" just to avoid confusion. OCCI Core says that
> a bunch of entities of a certain type (say Compute) automatically form a
> collection. This however was not entirely obvious at first glance so I
> wanted to make it clear that OCCI indeed have collections.
>
> I do not understand the reason for having the same representation for
> collections as for single resource responses.
>
> What is wrong with:
>
> GET /resource-ID
> { resource }
>
> GET /collection/
> {
>   collection: [ resource1, resource2, ... ],
>   size: 1004,        // total number of items in the collection, not in the
> response
>   start: 0,
> }
>
> E.g. how do you get just the size of a collection?
> Like this:
> GET /collectionX/?count=0
> ...
> {
>    collection: [],
>    size: 1004,
>    start: 0,
> }

There is nothing technically "wrong" with it, it just sucks as a client 
to figure out if you have an array or resource. CDMI had the same issue 
and decided for the array of one element....

>
>> e.g. instead of using
>> { "collection":
>>   [
>>    { "kind: { … }, "mixing": { … }, "actions": { … }, "attributes": { … }
>>    },
>>    { "kind: { … }, "mixing": { … }, "actions": { … }, "attributes": { … }
> }
>>   ]
>> }
> I still vote for this yes.
>
>> or just:
>> [
>>   { "kind: { … }, "mixing": { … }, "actions": { … }, "attributes": { … }
> },
>>   { "kind: { … }, "mixing": { … }, "actions": { … }, "attributes": { … }
> }
>> ]
> This we cannot have. It is a security issue to return a JSON arary at the
> top level. There is an old thread on occi-wg on that as well.
>
> regards, Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg