JSON differs from BSON about as much XML differs from EXI. Cheers Dana
On May 21, 2013, at 3:12 PM, David Lee wrote: > > You seriously doubt the usage of JSON in 2013 !? > > No I have no idea why you would think I seriously doubt JSON usage. I said > no such thing. > > I am simply making a factual correction that Mongo does not store JSON (it > stores BSON), > and that Mongo in fact uses JavaScript so saying that Mongo uses JSON and is > not related to JavaScript > is factually incorrect on two counts. Thats all. > > JSON is used all over the place. > > ---------------------------------------- > David A. Lee > [email protected] > http://www.xmlsh.org > > From: daniela florescu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:54 PM > To: David Lee > Cc: Andrew Welch; XQuery Talk > Subject: Re: [xquery-talk] WAS: and what I think we should tackle right now > > David, > > You seriously doubt the usage of JSON in 2013 !? > Just reassure me and tell me that this is not true.... > > I don't feel the need to loose my time justifying this. > > I have a crazy flashback..... > > I feel like back in 2004 when the relational people used to tell me > that there is no XML. > > Best > Dana > > > > On May 21, 2013, at 1:42 PM, David Lee wrote: > > > Just to be accurate ... > mongo doesn't store JSON it stores BSON > There is a huge difference even if the client side library text serialization > look similar and marketing claims they are the same. > So while I do agree JSON is used beyond JavaScript, quoting mongo as a > supporting factor for JSON is inaccurate IMHO. > ( although interesting Mongo has embedded a JavaScript runtime inside the > server engine to enhance query syntax, > so saying mongo isnt related to JavaScript is also inaccurate ... ). > > Difference between JSON and BSON ? > Lots ! > I will just mention 2 > 1) Try to store a 64 bit integer in JSON (works in BSON not in JSON) > 2) Dates anyone ? > > > > ---------------------------------------- > David A. Lee > [email protected] > http://www.xmlsh.org > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > daniela florescu > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:10 PM > To: Andrew Welch > Cc: XQuery Talk > Subject: [xquery-talk] WAS: and what I think we should tackle right now > > Andrew, > > I think the discussion started with a wrong assumption: that JSON is used > primarily in Javascript, and then went on > to see if JS will survive. Honestly I do not know, nor do I care. > > JSON will survive, I think. > > That's certainly not true anymore that JSON is used only in JS. > > Look at MongoDB. They have about 200K downloads a month, and people use all > their language bindings > (I don't even think JS is in top, .... I would be curious about that...) > > And with this huge demand, their support for serious querying is lacking. > Their query language is very restricted > and kind of hacky. > http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/operator/ > > Look how a query on JSON data could look like if they would use XQuery > principles: > > {| > for $store in collection("stores") > let $state := $store.state > group by $state > return { > $state : {| > for $product in collection("products") > let $category := $product.category > group by $category > return { > $category : {| > for $sales in collection("sales") > where (some $s in $store > satisfies $sales."store number" eq $s."store number") > and (some $p in $product > satisfies $sales.product eq $p.name) > let $pname := $sales.product > group by $pname > return { $pname : sum( $sales.quantity ) } > |} > } > |} > } > |} > > (that's a creating a triple nested JSON object) > > Sounds familiar and elegant, isn't it !? > (BTW, that's JSONiq http://www.jsoniq.org/) > > Why in the world would the XQuery community NOT help the JSON community use > what they have, given that > (1) it's totally applicable and > (2) it is good, powerful and elegant. > > Huh !? > > Best > Dana > > > > > > On May 21, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Andrew Welch wrote: > > > > On xml-dev there was a long discussion about this and someone said this very > intelligent thing: > "the Web ignored XML because XML ignored the Web". > > I don't get it - the language of the browser is javascript, and its > easy to process json in javascript.... The back end could well be xml, > but the server -> client communication is always going to be json > while the processing language is javascript - what's the problem with > that? > > > -- > Andrew Welch > http://andrewjwelch.com > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
