[11:54:25] maybe a slightly strange question: is the XML format of action=wikilambda_fetch considered stable already? : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/a0b12929/file_7334.jpg [11:54:42] because to me putting the result in an attribute instead of a text node seems a bit unusual [11:55:32] (I am, and may god have mercy on my soul for saying this, considering using the XML format instead of the JSON format in GraalEneyj, because apparently the JRE comes with XML parsers but not JSON parsers…) [11:59:43] How hard would it be to simply repackage a JSON parser when distributing GraalEneyj? Do none of its other dependencies provide one? (re @lucaswerkmeister: (I am, and may god have mercy on my soul for saying this, considering using the XML format instead of the JSON format in GraalEneyj, because apparently the JRE comes with XML parsers but not JSON parsers…)) [12:37:53] not too hard probably but I’d prefer to avoid it [12:38:13] for the main runtime (actually parsing the ZObjects) I got rid of the JSON parser I used to use and instead wrote a custom one with ANTLR [12:54:48] I’m using the XML API in https://github.com/lucaswerkmeister/graaleneyj/commit/659a77bce076434a60c63240e2f1ae11a19f5aaa for now [12:55:38] this is a follow-up to ^, by the way, in case anyone was wondering how active GraalEneyj development is at the moment 😶 (re @lucaswerkmeister: index.php?action=raw stopped working, apparently :/) [14:24:19] I don't think we have put any thought into the XML format yet, so it's as it is because that's kinda the default. [14:25:11] ok [14:26:57] Contributions are very welcome. But for now I wouldn't consider it stable, but also we're not going to intentionally break it. [14:28:43] shouldn’t be too hard to adapt to it in my code if it changes [14:28:56] the Java DOM API seems reasonably pleasant to work with so far ^^ [14:32:07] Nice