Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 PM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> **Hi! Is it still this doc:
> Anyone else have any thoughts? Stephan, Don, Tatu, Milo?
that one hasn't been edited since September?
A couple comments, both positive:
> * no int64 length support, (REASON), not every platform plays nice with64-bit. ...
> decode the format contents correctly. (WORKAROUND) just breakA second workaround option is to use doubles for such cases.
> the data payload into an array of multiple STRING or HUGE's.
> * signed length values, (REASON), numeric types in UBJSONWhile i think it's an unfortunate limitation, i think it is the right thing
> are all signed.
to do for UBJSON. It used to bug the hell out of me that Google' v8 JS
engine doesn't support unsigned numbers, but i've since gotten over it and
just use doubles as a proxy when i _have_ to deal with large integers.
----- stephan beal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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 +-