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

Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • rkalla123
    Tatu, Thank you for the pointer; wasn t familiar with Vints. Looking at it now. Best, Riyad
    Message 1 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Tatu,

      Thank you for the pointer; wasn't familiar with Vints. Looking at it now.

      Best,
      Riyad

      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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.