Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> Don,Yes, to properly support full JSON data set, one should provide
> I see your point. The way I understand it is that this would require 2 new data types, effectively BigInt and BigDecimal.
> So say something along these lines:
> bigint - marker 'G'
> [G][129 big-endian ordered bytes representing a BigInt]
> bigdouble - marker 'W'
> [W][222 big-endian ordered bytes representing a BigDecimal]
BigInteger/-Decimal either binary representations or by embedding
In practice I doubt it is needed all that often; BSON for example does
not support such types (unless I misread
-+ Tatu +-
- On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> Stephan,For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
> No problem; your feedback are still very applicable and much appreciated.
> The additional view-point on the signed/unsigned issue was exactly what I was hoping for. My primary goal has always been simplicity and I know at least from the Java world, going with unsigned values would have made the impl distinctly *not* simple (and an annoying API).
> So I am glad to get some validation there that I am not alienating every other language at the cost of Java.
-+ Tatu +-