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

Re: JSONRequest

Expand Messages
  • pigwin32
    ... This question may have been asked previously but a quick search didn t turn up anything. Why does JSONRequest only support GET/POST and propose a new
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@...> wrote:
      >
      > I am proposing a new mechanism for doing data transport in Ajax/Comet
      > applications. It is called JSONRequest. It is a minimal communications
      > facility that can be exempted from the Same Origin Policy.
      >
      > You can read about it here: http://json.org/JSONRequest.html
      >

      This question may have been asked previously but a quick search didn't
      turn up anything. Why does JSONRequest only support GET/POST and
      propose a new CANCEL request? What of PUT and DELETE? I can see how
      JSONRequest would be extremely useful for RESTful web services and I'm
      curious as to why you are proposing yet another protocol on top of
      HTTP when HTTP already provides the necessary verbs and
      exceptions/error codes. Wouldn't it be expedient to work within the
      existing HTTP specification? My apologies if this has already been
      addressed, I've arrived a little bit late to the discussion.

      - Dave
    • Tatu Saloranta
      ... I am not a REST expert, but isn t PUT used to store given payload (in this case, request in form of Json), and DELETE just ignore payload? Meaning that
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:10 AM, pigwin32 <pigwin32@...> wrote:
        > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> I am proposing a new mechanism for doing data transport in Ajax/Comet
        >> applications. It is called JSONRequest. It is a minimal communications
        >> facility that can be exempted from the Same Origin Policy.
        >>
        >> You can read about it here: http://json.org/JSONRequest.html
        >>
        >
        > This question may have been asked previously but a quick search didn't
        > turn up anything. Why does JSONRequest only support GET/POST and
        > propose a new CANCEL request? What of PUT and DELETE? I can see how
        > JSONRequest would be extremely useful for RESTful web services and I'm
        > curious as to why you are proposing yet another protocol on top of
        > HTTP when HTTP already provides the necessary verbs and
        > exceptions/error codes. Wouldn't it be expedient to work within the
        > existing HTTP specification? My apologies if this has already been
        > addressed, I've arrived a little bit late to the discussion.

        I am not a REST expert, but isn't PUT used to store given payload (in
        this case, request in form of Json), and DELETE just ignore payload?
        Meaning that such operations via JSONRequest wouldn't make much sense;
        after all, you can call PUT with appropriate content type anyway, and
        DELETE wouldn't require one.

        That is: what would be useful semantics for such operations? (same
        could be asked of GET -- but I assume that's for manual testing via
        browser)

        I guess case could be made that for completeness sake these verbs
        should be supported.

        -+ Tatu +-
      • Fang Yidong
        Hello Tatu, While I was googling JSON.simple usage, I occasionally find JsonSimpleDriver.java in svn of codehaus, and the benchmark results, comparing with
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 19, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Tatu,

          While I was googling JSON.simple usage, I occasionally find JsonSimpleDriver.java in svn of codehaus, and the benchmark results, comparing with Jackson and other libraries. I think that it's your work?

          The throughput of Jackson is high definitely and I really think Jackson is an excellent StAX JSON parser.

          I am writing to you because I'd like to share some of my opinions on the testing itself. I know that you haven't pulished the results yet, here's just some discussions.

          Here's my opinions:
          1. I think different libraries accept different inputs, such as a byte array, a string, a inputstream or a reader, so the preparation of such input objects should be prepared in the warm up stage, not the running.

          2. I think the iteration of the resulting graph is not a part of the parser and should not be put in the run method, but some minor operations can be performed to verified that the result is a correct one.

          3. Could you also help to test the SAX-like interface of JSON.simple in the way of JacksonDriverStreaming.java did? 

          I think your work will definitely help to improve the qualities of all JSON libraries.

          Thanks.

          Yidong Fang




          ___________________________________________________________
          好玩贺卡等你发,邮箱贺卡全新上线!
          http://card.mail.cn.yahoo.com/

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Fang Yidong
          Sorry this message is intended to send to Tatu only. My bad. Since the result is not published yet, let s discuss it privately. Hello Tatu, While I was
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 19, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry this message is intended to send to Tatu only. My bad.
            Since the result is not published yet, let's discuss it privately.












            Hello Tatu,



            While I was googling JSON.simple usage, I occasionally find JsonSimpleDriver. java in svn of codehaus, and the benchmark results, comparing with Jackson and other libraries. I think that it's your work?



            The throughput of Jackson is high definitely and I really think Jackson is an excellent StAX JSON parser.



            I am writing to you because I'd like to share some of my opinions on the testing itself. I know that you haven't pulished the results yet, here's just some discussions.



            Here's my opinions:

            1. I think different libraries accept different inputs, such as a byte array, a string, a inputstream or a reader, so the preparation of such input objects should be prepared in the warm up stage, not the running.



            2. I think the iteration of the resulting graph is not a part of the parser and should not be put in the run method, but some minor operations can be performed to verified that the result is a correct one.



            3. Could you also help to test the SAX-like interface of JSON.simple in the way of JacksonDriverStream ing.java did? 



            I think your work will definitely help to improve the qualities of all JSON libraries.



            Thanks.



            Yidong Fang




















            ___________________________________________________________
            好玩贺卡等你发,邮箱贺卡全新上线!
            http://card.mail.cn.yahoo.com/

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tatu Saloranta
            ... Hi there! Yes, that is true. ... Sure, thank you for your input. I hadn t yet published it, but it is of course public from the blog. ... Hmmh. I don t
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 19, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
              > Hello Tatu,
              >
              > While I was googling JSON.simple usage, I occasionally find JsonSimpleDriver.java in svn of codehaus, and the benchmark results, comparing with Jackson and other libraries. I think that it's your work?

              Hi there! Yes, that is true.

              >
              > The throughput of Jackson is high definitely and I really think Jackson is an excellent StAX JSON parser.
              >
              > I am writing to you because I'd like to share some of my opinions on the testing itself. I know that you haven't pulished the results yet, here's just some discussions.

              Sure, thank you for your input. I hadn't yet published it, but it is
              of course public from the blog.

              >
              > Here's my opinions:
              > 1. I think different libraries accept different inputs, such as a byte array, a string, a inputstream or a reader, so the preparation of such input objects should be prepared in the warm up stage, not the running.

              Hmmh. I don't think I fully agree, but I agree in that it depends on use case.

              For me, the use case is always getting Json from an external source
              (network request, from file system), and hence input is naturally a
              stream of bytes. So if a library just takes a String, it must be
              constructed from bytes.
              I did give shortcuts for some parsers so that there was no need to
              read from the stream, so in a way some parsers benefited from the
              setup (from my perspective).

              It is possible that other use cases could be ones where a String would
              be needed anyway (like perhaps reading it from a DB), but for me this
              is not the case.

              > 2. I think the iteration of the resulting graph is not a part of the parser and should not be put in the run method, but some minor operations can be performed to verified that the result is a correct one.

              I think needs to be, because otherwise you can not do anything of use;
              and parsers could optimize away some processing.
              I don't think results would differ a lot though, most parsers do
              handle all the data independent of traversal. I can probably make this
              configurable to see what the difference is.

              > 3. Could you also help to test the SAX-like interface of JSON.simple in the way of JacksonDriverStreaming.java did?

              Ah yes. Apologies for not trying it out -- I forgot that json.simple
              does in fact have a streaming interface. I can add that, and make it
              the main interface.

              > I think your work will definitely help to improve the qualities of all JSON libraries.

              Thank you, and thanks for feedback!

              -+ Tatu +-
            • Tatu Saloranta
              ... (took the discussion offline, but if anyone is interested in what results we are discussing, those are at:
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 20, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
                > Sorry this message is intended to send to Tatu only. My bad.
                > Since the result is not published yet, let's discuss it privately.

                (took the discussion offline, but if anyone is interested in what
                results we are discussing, those are at:

                http://www.cowtowncoder.com/blog/archives/2009/02/entry_204.html

                I will be making some updates; and if any owners of other packages
                have suggestions, let me know as well. Benchmarks are hard to do well
                with different use cases and emphasis, so at least I want to document
                presumptions and biases.

                -+ Tatu +-
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.