RE: WebCrypto: JSON data encoding debate

> Issues for the TAG:
> 1) Should the WG support both [individual reaction: No, seems like a really bad design smell]

I agree that supporting both is a bad idea, especially given the existence of the encoding API.

> 2) If the WG has to support one and only one, which one
>  a) JSON-as-ArrayBuffer  [individual reaction: Seems antagonistic towards developers for the common case]
>  b) JSON-as-JSO

I tentatively agree but before being sure I'd need more information about what these objects are used for, and about the cost of serializing/deserializing them:

- Are developers commonly expected to be manipulating them (or even logging them)? Or are they part of a usually-opaque protocol that rarely demands introspection?
- How are they represented internally? As binary data, or as structured objects?

If they are represented internally as binary data, *and* not expected to be manipulated often, then I could see an argument from efficiency for sticking with ArrayBuffer. Although even then, other responses in that thread indicate that this operation is not expected to be frequent or the payloads large, so in that case efficiency is not a great argument.

> since much of the debate is on a matter of "design smells" (whether it is or is not a smell to support the two methods simultaneously, whether it is or is not a smell to require Encoding spec), the TAG seems uniquely qualified to provide input.

I'm glad we're getting this kind of reputation! :)

Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 00:58:59 UTC