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

Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • Tatu Saloranta
    One thing I did have in mind was that use of zigzag encoded VInts has benefts, and is used by many (most?) new binary dataformats. It is also not overly
    Message 1 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      One thing I did have in mind was that use of zigzag encoded VInts has
      benefts, and is used by many (most?) new binary dataformats. It is
      also not overly complex to use (although granted easy to get wrong at
      first try).
      Its main benefit is reduced size of data.

      -+ Tatu +-

      On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:12 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
      > Thank you John for the feedback.
      >
      > Anyone else have any thoughts? Stephan, Don, Tatu, Milo?
      >
      > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> rkalla123 scripsit:
      >>
      >> > I was hoping to get some feedback on a few changes I have planned for
      >> > the Universal Binary JSON Specification (http://ubjson.org) Draft 9
      >> > before I made them official.
      >>
      >> They all look fine to me.
      >>
      >> --
      >> We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do,        John Cowan <cowan@...>
      >> What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must;
      >> Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
      >> Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust.  --Bokonon
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • 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.