Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON (Proposal)

Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com> Fri, 07 May 2010 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <lshepard@facebook.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A086F3A69B3 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2010 22:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bpzd+pX0tN-L for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2010 22:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-snc1.facebook.com (mailout-snc1.facebook.com [69.63.179.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECB428C13D for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 May 2010 22:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.thefacebook.com ([192.168.18.105]) by pp01.snc1.tfbnw.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o475msnH002334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 May 2010 22:48:54 -0700
Received: from SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.102]) by sc-hub02.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.105]) with mapi; Thu, 6 May 2010 22:48:12 -0700
From: Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com>
To: Greg Brail <gbrail@sonoasystems.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 22:48:12 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON (Proposal)
Thread-Index: AcrtqOE4Oq2YZM9aR+2qWUdIZTCltw==
Message-ID: <E9F67F8B-DF87-40D5-8BCF-F9113D14BD77@facebook.com>
References: <9890332F-E759-4E63-96FE-DB3071194D84@gmail.com> <20100430105935.20255m8kdythy6sc@webmail.df.eu> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723439323D0DB0@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTik3NSJynWfiNWovruPEOT2Y6G1zcWPFOaS_pHdy@mail.gmail.com> <4BE1AF25.7000308@lodderstedt.net> <AANLkTil2_9KOm1eRoC0jxvH99E55K3BEW-T5cgWLay9H@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTilWV3VVBROXZuky5OLNzM2hz27pEqwG1l6W2Uc1@mail.gmail.com> <4BE1BB10.7060009@lodderstedt.net> <w2v77facc501005051149pca35de47tfcca515a3b557c81@mail.gmail.com> <4BE1F2A1.9040707@pidster.com> <s2mc334d54e1005060846k10f446b4r5f907acf237f8735@mail.gmail.com> <01bb1f595f89af50b0c37c00dbcd54cd@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <01bb1f595f89af50b0c37c00dbcd54cd@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E9F67F8BDF8740D58BCFF9113D14BD77facebookcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2010-05-07_01:2010-02-06, 2010-05-07, 2010-05-06 signatures=0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON (Proposal)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 05:54:13 -0000

On May 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Greg Brail wrote:

I agree that JSON is the long-term winner. However, at least for Java and Python I know that JSON parsers are not part of the standard library, whereas everything needed to decode a url-formencoded library is in the standard libraries and has been there for a long, long time. Keep in mind that the overhead of using third-party code is not just in finding and using the right library, but getting legal clearance if it's open source and you work for a big company.

Python includes a JSON parser in Python 2.6: http://docs.python.org/library/json.html

Java has JSONObject available. Are there cases where it would be difficult to use a library like this?