Re:Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
by jroseattle on Monday April 06, 2015 @01:12AM
(#9326692)
> keep in mind that ultrajson only works with well defined collections and will not work for un-serializable collections. But if you are dealing with texts, this should not be a problem.
Well-defined collections? As in, serializable? Well sure, that's requisite for the native json package as well as simplejson (as far as I can recall -- haven't used simplejson in some time.)
But does "texts" refer to strings? As in, only one data type? The source code certainly supports other types, so I wonder what this statement refers to.
Re:Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
by random567 on Monday April 06, 2015 @02:57AM
(#9326948)
ujson doesn't error out if you have a collection that isn't serializable so you can lose individual keys. It also has issues with ints and floats that are too big (just fails out)
Well-defined collections? As in, serializable? Well sure, that's requisite for the native json package as well as simplejson (as far as I can recall -- haven't used simplejson in some time.)
But does "texts" refer to strings? As in, only one data type? The source code certainly supports other types, so I wonder what this statement refers to.