airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Danushka Menikkumbura <danushka.menikkumb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Initiating GSoC Project - JSON support and JSON to XML bidirectional conversion for Airavata
Date Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:24:09 GMT
Yes.Please.

Lets get this sorted out asap as everything else (i.e. the master project)
depends on it.

Thanks,
Danushka


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Shameera Rathnayaka <shameerainfo@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hi Danushka,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts. we can list down all pros and
> cons of each approach and select the best approach base on the results. As
> Danushka has mentioned, we need to consider the effort and time too when we
> do this selection.
>
> @Lahiru, It would be very good, if we can know your point of on this too.
>
> @All, you are welcome to add your thoughts on these approaches.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shameera.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Danushka Menikkumbura <
> danushka.menikkumbura@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the late reply as I have been busy with a release for the last
> > few days.
> >
> > This was the plan (This is suggested as the first approach in my
> proposal),
> > > but to implement this we need to use java inside the JS. From developer
> > > perspective it is not a good idea as there are difficulties to debug
> and
> > > lack of tooling support.
> >
> >
> > I would still opt for Airavata API inside JS for the following reasons.
> >
> > 1. The current API has been there for a while, hence well tested and
> > stable. Therefore the chances are very slim that you will end up
> debugging
> > through it for troubleshooting. If we have proper exception handling in
> the
> > JS, we will easily see what went wrong in the API call.
> >
> > 2. Writing an API from the scratch will require more time and effort to
> > make it stable. Moreover, debugging a JS API written from the scratch
> would
> > be trickier than using a stable API inside it and checking for issues
> that
> > may occur sporadically.
> >
> > 3. I am not a "JS guy" but NetBeans would be a better options in terms of
> > tooling IMO.
> >
> >
> > > Great, This means there won't be any issue choosing above approach,
> isn't
> > > it? Could you please explain how we intend to support that with JS if
> we
> > > don't need a RabbitMQ JS API?.
> > >
> >
> > Frankly, I do not still see a need for JS API.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Danushka
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Shameera Rathnayaka.
>
> email: shameera AT apache.org , shameerainfo AT gmail.com
> Blog : http://shameerarathnayaka.blogspot.com/
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message