On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:01:33 +0100 Vincent Hanquez <vinc...@snarc.org> wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 10/16/2009 11:37 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>> > >>> I already am :-) Stay tuned, I should have a patch later this > >>> afternoon. > >> > >> Was it a race? (Seriously, sorry I didn't notice a couple of hours > >> ago). > >> > >> This one is ~5% slower than the "Evil" one, but half the size. > >> Tested against the comments.json file from the "Evil" parser and with > >> valgrind too. Does all the funky Unicode stuff too. > > > > I haven't benchmarked mine. While yours came out an hour earlier, I > > included a full test suite, output QObjects, and support vararg > > parsing so I think I win :-) > ar.. got mine too, i've been doing for the last 3 weeks slowly; Very nice to see all these contributions. > it got a raw/pretty printer, an interruptible parser (on the same idea > as JSON_parser.c), it's faster than JSON_parser.c [1], > it's completely generic (more like a library than an embedded thing), > fully JSON compliant (got a test suite too), support > user supplied alloc functions, and callback for integer/float doesn't > have their data converted automatically which means > that the user of the library can use whatever it want to support the > non-limited size JSON number (or just return errors for user that want > the limit). > > the library by itself is 39K with -g last time i've looked. Integration with QObjects is a killer feature, I think it's the stronger argument against grabbing one from the internet.
