W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Stream-based processing!?

From: Olivier Grisel <olivier.grisel@ensta.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:17:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFvE7K6vDqrkKpYExTZVJ7g_crfpmR690yAX=nxUH7Oq59MvLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
2011/10/4 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>
> The question is really of practice, and we may have to look around for feedback. Ie: how easy is it, for different JSON libraries out there, to ensure order in parsing and, more importantly, for the production of JSON? Or do we require JSON-LD programmers, data producers, etc, to use non-standard tools? In other words, does the JSON community ignore the RFC spec and, in effect, uses ordering?

Parsing is really not an issue: if you don't care about one-pass
processing, then you don't need to preserve the ordering at when
parsing. What is more an issue is to evaluate whether different
communities would be able to implement JSON-LD *serialization* with a
deterministic ordering using the standard JSON tools of their
frameworks (standard libraries of open source languages such as perl,
ruby, python, php, js, erlang, java, clojure, scala... or popular web
frameworks for instances: rails, sinatra, django, pyramid, nodjs,
eventmachine...).

>From my experience this should not be an issue for the python
community (because of the ordereddict class, either in the STD lib or
a as a cut and paste snippet you can embed in your project) nor for
Java where the LinkedHashMap implementation comes by default in the
JRE/JDK since Java 1.5). Could other provide clues for the other
languages / frameworks?

-- 
Olivier
http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 08:18:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:35 GMT