Re:Data serialization
by derefr on Monday June 04, 2018 @12:36PM
(#17229574)
> embedded beinary blobs already work. lookup GLB for an example on how to embed binary blobs in Json.
Those aren't embedded binary blobs, those are string representations of base64-encoded binary blobs. Unless they come out of the JSON decoder as a byte array, they're not "working" as part of JSON; they're another standard on top of JSON.
(Also, the GP commenter probably wants them to be transmitted with 0 encoding overhead. Which can't really work while JSON is still JSON. But you can always use an alternative format which handles a superset of JSON's types, and which is binary, e.g. BSON or CBOR.)
> maps can be implemented with 1 array and 1 map, with the keys being the hash of the object. the hash function should probably be written in the Json itself for completeness.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the thrust of the GP poster's request, here? They don't want to serialize a map in a way that is cheap to deserialize—different languages have different hashtable implementations so there's no way it could really work. What the GP poster (and many other people) want, is just to have something that encodes similarly to existing "object maps" (the ones with curly braces), but with a slight syntactic alteration so that they come out of the decoder as Maps, rather than as Objects.
Re:Data serialization
by randyrand on Monday June 04, 2018 @09:56PM
(#17234368)
I'm not talking about data URIs. You can write binary data in the same file as the json. Most parsers don't care what comes after the last curly brace.
Those aren't embedded binary blobs, those are string representations of base64-encoded binary blobs. Unless they come out of the JSON decoder as a byte array, they're not "working" as part of JSON; they're another standard on top of JSON.
(Also, the GP commenter probably wants them to be transmitted with 0 encoding overhead. Which can't really work while JSON is still JSON. But you can always use an alternative format which handles a superset of JSON's types, and which is binary, e.g. BSON or CBOR.)
> maps can be implemented with 1 array and 1 map, with the keys being the hash of the object. the hash function should probably be written in the Json itself for completeness.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the thrust of the GP poster's request, here? They don't want to serialize a map in a way that is cheap to deserialize—different languages have different hashtable implementations so there's no way it could really work. What the GP poster (and many other people) want, is just to have something that encodes similarly to existing "object maps" (the ones with curly braces), but with a slight syntactic alteration so that they come out of the decoder as Maps, rather than as Objects.