Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects

Jorge <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> Fri, 05 July 2013 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jorge@jorgechamorro.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCEF11E827D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 02:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PI+e3gochunl for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 02:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE7211E827B for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 02:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p60so1769456wes.41 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=Q+zlXFC3mVL5Ut83CG7gfIvXQ6O7eb4rhnluaJQO93I=; b=QzOjV4Xa0XVPpZovz6J7AsKAd7KO2UWwvcDrm7QZyvel+p6Q6LVENAq/bk5Pc2zVI9 edvvrIGW9kOuIrlWqc3q03F6nomzBOK/GmYnSPenLUyazi1Y4rtJA+Tj4VVy/cUp8U0l dPPt0/OESCA0VcfKM8qE5JRLZb4LLClrkV1YZi6FzNkeYA5hFDgGvfatuv8BPkDNf6bD 3Qw3FcjpFF7X2Cr/U9Ot4aJb57PFDeSIy1/UanmJXfnNaWUYVUvPB79v2Q9dGEdZ+Gxr dTCRtuj7wji2hjQLbI+91bOGxalmZSOl8gh7phzvZuuSwpZvJQiW91a0quQ6VEqg/Hno r9Aw==
X-Received: by 10.180.74.197 with SMTP id w5mr23019641wiv.20.1373017673716; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.50] (156.Red-79-155-151.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [79.155.151.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm39034225wiv.0.2013.07.05.02.47.52 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Jorge <jorge@jorgechamorro.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGrxA24di1VgXZrHZfSGQ1YohuhidaRM2yPahbeKZpW4LQ7-kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:47:50 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FA0B298E-2779-4114-9F6E-99F9AF22FF4B@jorgechamorro.com>
References: <B86E1D4B-1DC8-4AD6-B8B3-E989599E0537@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOj3MNNhjwo2bMa5CgoqynzMRVvviBXC8szxt5D17Z7FDg@mail.gmail.com> <51D3C63C.5030703@cisco.com> <51D48023.1020008@qti.qualcomm.com> <51D48990.7090305@cisco.com> <CAK3OfOijGyGMEaeM6CmV+AbRHq2aJ3KaEc7sbrGDvQYuzSCc3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAGrxA24di1VgXZrHZfSGQ1YohuhidaRM2yPahbeKZpW4LQ7-kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrZPxv05tV/KFqY47W9EXcCx4eBlPmh81MukdwKES+/MHWV63dBxWuZiwlnrcNL0jLGTf9
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "json@ietf.org WG" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 09:48:01 -0000

On 05/07/2013, at 00:17, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> 
> At the same time, given such separation of processing layers, nothing prevents applications from doing custom serialization/deserialization, and by-passing strict checks. I don't personally mind that -- as long as ramifications are made clear, it's their responsibility -- but I don't think is universally agreed view.

I've been using JSON in a server in a language that doesn't have objects... so for the outgoing JSON texts I've had to write a custom generator for every kind of payload, manually grabbing the data from a predefined set of vars, and idem for the incoming JSON texts: .parse()ing had to fill a different predefined set of vars for each kind of payload.

This is one of those scenarios in which JSON text parsers and generators have to be ad hoc.
-- 
( Jorge )();