Re: Proposal: Add JSON support

2010/3/29 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Adams
>> <joeyadams3.14159@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm wondering whether the internal representation of JSON should be
>>> plain JSON text, or some binary code that's easier to traverse and
>>> whatnot.  For the sake of code size, just keeping it in text is
>>> probably best.
>>
>> +1 for text.
>
> Agreed.

There's another choice, called BSON.

http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/BSON

I've not researched it yet deeply, it seems reasonable to be stored in
databases as it is invented for MongoDB.

>>> Now my thoughts and opinions on the JSON parsing/unparsing itself:
>>>
>>> It should be built-in, rather than relying on an external library
>>> (like XML does).
>>
>> Why?  I'm not saying you aren't right, but you need to make an
>> argument rather than an assertion.  This is a community, so no one is
>> entitled to decide anything unilaterally, and people want to be
>> convinced - including me.
>
> Yeah, why? We should not be in the business of reinventing the wheel (and
> then maintaining the reinvented wheel), unless the code in question is
> *really* small.

Many implementations in many languages of JSON show that parsing JSON
is not so difficult to code and the needs vary. Hence, I wonder if we
can have it very our own.

Never take it wrongly, I don't disagree text format nor disagree to
use an external library.

Regards,

--
Hitoshi Harada