Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of MapGuideRfc25

Jul 25, 2007, 11:58:46 AM (16 years ago)



  • MapGuideRfc25

    v1 v1  
     1= !MapGuide RFC # - JSON format responses =
     3This page contains an change request (RFC) for the !MapGuide Open Source project. 
     4More !MapGuide RFCs can be found on the [wiki:MapGuideRfcs RFCs] page.
     7== Status ==
     9||RFC Template Version||(1.0)||
     10||Submission Date||(Date/Time submitted)||
     11||Last Modified||(your name here) [[Timestamp]]||
     12||Author||(your name here)||
     13||RFC Status||(draft, proposed, frozen for vote, adopted, retracted, or rejected)||
     14||Implementation Status||(pending, under development, completed)||
     15||Proposed Milestone||1.1||
     16||Assigned PSC guide(s)||(when determined)||
     17||'''Voting History'''||(vote date)||
     18||+1|| ||
     19||+0|| ||
     20||-0|| ||
     21||-1|| ||
     23== Overview ==
     25JSON ( will be used to provide a lightweight data-interchange format between the web tier and any clients for requests that can currently return XML responses.
     27== Motivation ==
     29This is the most important part of the RFC.  It describes the problem domain in detail.  Focusing on this will allow reviewers to fully understand why the proposed change is being made, and potentially suggest different/better ways of accomplishing the desired results.  The more time we spend on understanding the problem, the better our solution will be.
     31The Fusion framework uses JSON in order to keep client side code simple (it much easier to work with than XML) and JSON is a more compact format so communication over the wire is more efficient.
     33Currently Fusion uses a web tier PHP script to convert the XML responses to JSON, but this is inefficient so we will move the generation of JSON into the server.  This should further speed up the generation of the JSON, and where required we can eliminate the intermediate XML form.
     35== Proposed Solution ==
     37This is a more detailed description of the actual changes desired.  The contents of this section will vary based on the target of the RFC, be it a technical change, website change, or process change.  For example, for a technical change, items such as files, XML schema changes, and API chances would be identified.  For a process change, the new process would be laid out in detail.  For a website change, the files affected would be listed.
     39== Implications ==
     41This section allows discussion of the repercussions of the change, such as whether there will be any breakage in backwards compatibility, if documentation will need to be updated, etc.
     43== Test Plan ==
     45How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable.  New unit tests should be detailed here???
     47== Funding/Resources ==
     49This section will confirm that the proposed feature has enough support to proceed.  This would typically mean that the entity making the changes would put forward the RFC, but a non-developer could act as an RFC author if they are sure they have the funding to cover the change.