Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1814Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • Stephan Beal
    Feb 20, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 PM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:

      > **
      > Anyone else have any thoughts? Stephan, Don, Tatu, Milo?

      Hi! Is it still this doc:


      that one hasn't been edited since September?

      A couple comments, both positive:

      > * no int64 length support, (REASON), not every platform plays nice with
      64-bit. ...
      > decode the format contents correctly. (WORKAROUND) just break
      > the data payload into an array of multiple STRING or HUGE's.

      A second workaround option is to use doubles for such cases.

      > * signed length values, (REASON), numeric types in UBJSON
      > are all signed.

      While i think it's an unfortunate limitation, i think it is the right thing
      to do for UBJSON. It used to bug the hell out of me that Google' v8 JS
      engine doesn't support unsigned numbers, but i've since gotten over it and
      just use doubles as a proxy when i _have_ to deal with large integers.


      ----- stephan beal

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 76 messages in this topic