On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Joshua Paine <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Your format is certainly lighter over the wire, but it's very much not >> how users of JSON generally do things and expect things to work. I think >> it's worth some bytes to be unsurprising. (And you can always gzip it >> over the wire, which will remove most of the size difference.) > > i'm working on the "fat" impl now, and we'll be able to switch via cli/cgi > option.
Unless you have some specific usecase for a "fat" implementation, I'd say skip the option and just output the format of least surprise. I can't see a good reason to have it. As for the key re-ordering, that's a non-issue, if I'm going to be manipulating the data for re-insert into the database, I'll specifically order the columns in the insert and sort the keys myself. And, for display, I doubt I'll be wanting to display them in schema-order either. > > :) > > -- > ----- stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
