Re: Proposal: Add JSON support

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I've been wondering whether the JSON datatype should be strict or conservative.
>
> For one, there's strict JSON (following the exact specification).
> Then there's more conservative JSON variants.  Some JSON parsers
> support comments, some support invalid number formats (e.g. '3.' or
> '+5'), etc..
>
> The consensus seems to be that JSON content should be stored verbatim
> (it should store the exact string the client sent to it), as is done
> with XML.  However, this notion is somewhat incompatible with "Be
> conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from
> others" because we can't accept loose JSON, then spit out conservative
> JSON without messing with the content.
>
> Here's my idea: the datatype should only allow strict JSON, but there
> should be a function that accepts a liberal format, cleans it up to
> make it strict JSON, and converts it to JSON.  I think making strict
> JSON the default makes the most sense because:
>  * Inputs to the database will most likely be coming from programs, not humans.
>  * Output is expected to be valid JSON and work anywhere JSON should work.
>  * Strict JSON is what more people would expect, I'd think.

+1

--
Mike Rylander
| VP, Research and Design
| Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: miker(at)esilibrary(dot)com
| web: http://www.esilibrary.com