Thanks for the test data. Are you going to request a side meeting for Prague?
Bret Sent from my Commodore 128D PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 > On Dec 7, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Anders Rundgren <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Since XML Canonicalization has a reputation of not only being brittle but > also terribly slow, I tested JCS [1] with the following JSON file: > { > "1": {"f": {"f": "hi","F": 5} ,"\n": 56.0}, > "10": { }, > "": "empty", > "a": { }, > "111": [ {"e": "yes","E": "no" } ], > "A": { } > } > > Expected output: > {"":"empty","1":{"\n":56,"f":{"F":5,"f":"hi"}},"10":{},"111":[{"E":"no","e":"yes"}],"A":{},"a":{}} > > Since JCS only is a serialization concept (parsing is unaffected), I compared > the execution speed of standard serialization versus canonicalized > serialization. > > Using https://www.npmjs.com/package/canonicalize the performance penalty was > about 2.4 compared to JSON.stringify(). > Using my homegrown JSON tools written in Java having an integrated > "canonicalize" serializer option the performance penalty was about 1.4 > > Anders > > 1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-01 > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
