Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Adams
<joeyadams3.14...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm wondering whether the internal representation of JSON should be
plain JSON text, or some binary code that's easier to traverse and
whatnot. For the sake of code size, just keeping it in text is
probably best.
+1 for text.
Agreed.
Now my thoughts and opinions on the JSON parsing/unparsing itself:
It should be built-in, rather than relying on an external library
(like XML does).
Why? I'm not saying you aren't right, but you need to make an
argument rather than an assertion. This is a community, so no one is
entitled to decide anything unilaterally, and people want to be
convinced - including me.
Yeah, why? We should not be in the business of reinventing the wheel
(and then maintaining the reinvented wheel), unless the code in question
is *really* small.
As far as character encodings, I'd rather keep that out of the JSON
parsing/serializing code itself and assume UTF-8. Wherever I'm wrong,
I'll just throw encode/decode/validate operations at it.
I think you need to assume that the encoding will be the server
encoding, not UTF-8. Although others on this list are better
qualified to speak to that than I am.
The trouble is that JSON is defined to be specifically Unicode, and in
practice for us that means UTF8 on the server side. It could get a bit
hairy, and it's definitely not something I think you can wave away with
a simple "I'll just throw some encoding/decoding function calls at it."
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
