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

Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • Paul C. Bryan
    ... Also presumably it s perfectly acceptable to encode numbers
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 18:17 +0000, rkalla123 wrote:

      > So to your question specifically, yes the intent is that any string
      > you encode as a huge number (> 64-bits) is written in adherence with
      > the original JSON spec so it can be processed in exactly the same
      > manner.

      Also presumably it's perfectly acceptable to encode numbers <= 64 bits
      in an "H" value.

      Paul
    • Tatu Saloranta
      ... For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a good thing. -+ Tatu +-
      Message 76 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
        > Stephan,
        >
        > 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.

        For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
        good thing.

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