On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Henri Sivonen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jarred Nicholls <[email protected]> > wrote: > > A good compromise would be to only throw it away (and thus restrict > > responseText access) upon the first successful parse when accessing > > .response. > > I disagree. Even though conceptually, the spec says that you first > accumulate text and then you invoke JSON.parse, I think we should > allow for implementations that feed an incremental JSON parser as data > arrives from the network and throws away each input buffer after > pushing it to the incremental JSON parser. > > That is, in order to allow more memory-efficient implementations in > the future, I think we shouldn't expose responseText for JSON. > I'm completely down with that. It still leaves an unsatisfied use case; but one that, after a nice weekend of relaxation, I no longer care about. > > -- > Henri Sivonen > [email protected] > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > -- ................................................................ *Sencha* Jarred Nicholls, Senior Software Architect @jarrednicholls <http://twitter.com/jarrednicholls>
