Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
Thank you for the pointer.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Patrick Maupin <pmaupin@...> wrote:
> I'm all for big integer support. I use it all the time (from Python).
> As an aside, as others have pointed out, there are other similar
> efforts around. If you really want to distinguish this one by making
> it truly universal, then you really do have to support big integers.
> In terms of design features, have you looked at the Python
> pickle/cPickle modules? Even though the problem you are solving is
> not exactly the same as the problem those solve, the problems are
> quite similar, and it may be instructive to examine a data format that
> solves a similar problem, and the well-tested underlying code (both
> pure Python and C available) that implements readers and writers for
> the format.
> Thanks and best regards,
> Patrick Maupin
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:43 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> > Stephan,
> > It reminds me of our conversation earlier about 64-bit. As you mentioned, Don has a great point, but the uniqueness of the data structure (I doubt the majority of people using JSON would use it) combined with my gut telling me to wait, I think I am going to specify BigInt/BigDecimal support in the official specification under a new section "Pending" and wait for feedback from more people.
> > I am working hard to keep the spec so conceptually simple that it just fits in a tiny brain-pocket any time someone reads it and they feel empowered immediately to start getting work done.
> > This might mean at the beginning some fringe items not being addressed, but I'd rather add them under strong demand later, then add them now and make those extra 10% of features suddenly make the format seem JUST complex enough that someone skimming it, hoping for something simple to use starts to glaze their eyes over and not be interested anymore.
> > I really appreciate this dialog on the subject guys, it helps get all the aspects out on the table early!
- 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 +-