On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm reading Alan's post as saying that he has a competing implementation.
Yes, there are several JSON implementation now, some better than others. I finally sat down and put the five or so top JSON libraries to the test so we can all see what's what. I've put everything in a report here: http://deron.meranda.us/python/comparing_json_modules/ I have tried to be very rigorous. There's probably mistakes in there, so let me know if anybody finds any. Also if any of you module authors update your code and want me to re-do the tests against a newer version let me know. I do have to say I'm glad to see that many of the implementations have been getting much much better since I first checked out the scene a year ago. Yes, my module is among those, but I don't particularly care who's we use (or derive from) for inclusion in Python, as long as we can clean up any warts or issues with non-conformance. Seeing all these compared in one place might give all of us ideas for a better approach before anything becomes an official Python component. I've certainly learned a few things I could do better with mine by looking at everybody else's. I do think though that if this is targeted for Python 3, that none of the modules really works well. We should really design an interface that uses the bytes type rather than str for pushing around encoded JSON data. > But I believe that both approaches Alan offers are overkill: he > proposes something like the db-API, where there are multiple > implementations of the same API (except in the case of the db-API they > aren't necessarily 100% interchangeable). I agree, let's not go down the db-API path! It's full of mud. -- Deron Meranda _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
