If you read the implementation, you'll see that significant laziness is
indeed possible for JsonObject and JsonArray, even while doing eager
validation. (Of course, one can shift the balance to achieve various
other tradeoffs.)
On 5/16/2025 10:35 AM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Goetz"<brian.go...@oracle.com>
To: "Remi Forax"<fo...@univ-mlv.fr>, "Paul Sandoz"<paul.san...@oracle.com>
Cc: "core-libs-dev"<core-libs-dev@openjdk.org>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 2:53:18 PM
Subject: Re: Towards a JSON API for the JDK
On 5/15/2025 5:27 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
It's not clear to me why JsonArray (for example) has to be an interface instead
of a record ?
Oh, you know the answer to this. A record limits us to a single
implementation with a rigid representation. Behind an interface, we can
hide lazy parsing and inflation, wrapping other representations to
reduce copies, etc.
First, let me refine the question.
There are only 4 kinds of JSON values that benefit from having different
representations, object, array, string and number.
For object and array, both takes an interface as parameter (Map or List) so
JsonArray and JSonObject do not need to be themselves interfaces.
So the only values where it may be worth to be modeled using an interface are JsonString
and JsonNumber, because as you said, you can do "lazy" parsing.
But delaying the parsing of the content has the side effect that even if
Json.parse() did not throw an exception, it does not mean that the JSON text is
valid, an exception may be thrown later.
Now, for me, this library is more about being simple and safe than fast.
If you agree with that, delaying the parsing is not a good idea, thus JSON
values should be modeled using records and not interfaces.
regards,
Rémi
