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

Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • rkalla123
    ... Yes exactly right. You could encode every number that way and it would amount to parsing strings on the processing side, effectively performing on par with
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 26, 2011
      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@...> wrote:
      > Also presumably it's perfectly acceptable to encode numbers <= 64 bits
      > in an "H" value.

      Yes exactly right.

      You could encode every number that way and it would amount to parsing strings on the processing side, effectively performing on par with standard JSON parsing because you have the String > Number Type conversion taking place.

      For performance minded folks, not great, but for someone with a unique need that wanted to make all values H-encoded, definitely something they are free to do.
    • 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
        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.