Sigh. The use of json format is not necessary or sufficient make the service "micro".
There's this thing called "content-negotiation". IMHO, Any http web service framework worth using just does it. This means that the "xml or json" issues are fixed before they start. Unless you really want to have that trouble later.
He says that it is an ill-defined term then goes on with So for the purposes of this article he will use json-over-http.
The actual method (json-over-http-, thrift-over-infiniband, best practices regarding conten-negotiation) is not the point of the article.
So to keep things simple for the purposes of an article he uses probably the most common method; is that really cause for a self-aggrandizing snarky comment?
> is that really cause for a self-aggrandizing snarky comment?
I think it is worth addressing this. In my day job we are dealing with the ongoing effects of not doing http content negotiation a while back, and an article that perpetuates bad practices (even by the omission of simply failing to mention anything else because it's not the point of the article) is not helpful.
Sigh. The use of json format is not necessary or sufficient make the service "micro".
There's this thing called "content-negotiation". IMHO, Any http web service framework worth using just does it. This means that the "xml or json" issues are fixed before they start. Unless you really want to have that trouble later.