well, as alex said, the format is quite cool and very useful when it's
used in an ecma script environment. and i guess the order is not often
used. and if you wish to iterate, then you can just use the
child-names array, eg:
for (var name in obj[":child-names"]) {
var child = obj[name];
}
regards, toby
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> wrote:
> While I see the reasons behind just adding an order property, I agree
> with Eric that if you want to have an ordering use an array - maps
> rarely have an order regardless of the language.
> This is about adding a "new" format, so both client and server needs to
> implement this - therefore I think we're really free to do the right
> thing. I don't see the need that the enhanced format is nearly the same
> as the old one.
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
> Alexander Klimetschek wrote
>> On 07.04.11 21:47, "Eric Norman" <eric.d.nor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any reason why you can't just make a custom script to output
>>> whatever JSON format you want? I'm not convinced this has usefulness
>>> outside your use case that would warrant changing the generic format.
>>
>> That's what we are discussing: how to integrate it as simple as possible
>> without breaking things ;-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alex
>>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziege...@apache.org
>
