Hi there, How will people like myself know when the patch has been implemented?
Thanks for the help. Lynton -----Original Message----- From: Adam Kocoloski [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 July 2009 03:02 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: JSON encoding errors On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Chris Anderson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Christopher Lenz<[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 25.07.2009, at 21:58, Paul Davis wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Chris Anderson<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Benoit Chesneau<[email protected] >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2009/7/25 Lynton Grice <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi there, >>>>>> >>>>>> I just tried that and it still gives an error. Any other idea? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I suspect that the lib not mochijson wait do something. >>>>> >>>>> - benoît >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In another thread we narrowed it down to patches on our version of >>>> mochijson2. This hard-to-track error makes me think we should just >>>> rename our version of the library. >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>> >>> Out of curiosity, after the discussion on changing the format, why >>> didn't mochiweb ever take that patch upstream? >> >> I don't think we ever submitted a patch. >> > > Cross-posting to dev@ again. > > I believe I may have had an informal conversation with Bob at the time > our new JSON usage was fresh, and came away thinking he wasn't > interested. Of course this was before we brought it up on the Erlang > list and came to consensus. Also, I might not be remembering this > correctly - which underscores the importance of having discussions on > archived mailing lists. > > Looking at the diff between our mochijson2 and the upstream version, > there are a few differences: > > Aside from the {struct, proplist()} thing, the biggest is our handling > of numbers, which is simpler than theirs but without falling over to > floating-point notation for large integers. I introduced this change > because the upstream float-conversion was causing us to fail to > round-trip very large numbers that we'd been able to handle before. > > Mochijson has also added the ability to output JSON as utf8 instead of > backslash-encoded. This seems like a change we'll certainly want to > absorb. There are also some changes around UTF-16 handling which I'd > have to look at more closely to understand. > > I think we should definitely start a discussion with the Mochiweb team > about either merging our renaming our library. I'd also suggest that > we let integrating their new patches wait for the 0.11 branch so we > don't introduce subtle regressions with little time for testing before > 0.10. > > Chris I submitted a patch to Mochiweb for the UTF-16 surrogate pair decoding problem. I don't think there are any other UTF-16 differences. I agree that we don't need to tackle this integration for 0.10. Adam=
