2010/3/29 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>: > 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.
There's another choice, called BSON. http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/BSON I've not researched it yet deeply, it seems reasonable to be stored in databases as it is invented for MongoDB. >>> 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. Many implementations in many languages of JSON show that parsing JSON is not so difficult to code and the needs vary. Hence, I wonder if we can have it very our own. Never take it wrongly, I don't disagree text format nor disagree to use an external library. Regards, -- Hitoshi Harada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
