4 ms·

Just because the data is structured this way in the example, doesn't mean it's not possible. What's hindering you from defining a class property for each color?

Just because the data is structured this way in the example, doesn't mean it's not possible. What's hindering you from defining a class property for each color? "colors": { "red":{"rgb":"fff"}", ... }

ajuc 6y ago
That's the point GP is making. Use JSON objects for dictionary-like structures instead of directly translating XML to JSON.
- SamBam 6y ago
  But the point is that it's always usage dependant. You key by color names, that seems obvious. But what if you want to look up a color by hex? Now you have to look through them all. What if this list is actually an order list of colors for different headings? And they can repeat? Then indexing by index is exactly what you want. Point is, you don't know the reason behind the data structure. (That said, I do wish the json had a standardized way to remove redundancy for objects that always follow the same structure. One list of property names, and then everything in arrays.)
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > But what if you want to look up a color by hex? Now you have to look through them all. As you would with the original one as well. > Then indexing by index is exactly what you want. A much better use case. That said, the list order is kinda fragile, having an explicit row identifier might be worth adding. Especially since all of the columns are being explicitly called out instead of in their own list.
falcolas 6y ago
It's absolutely possible, yet the example doesn't do it. That's what the comment was calling out (plus a bit of superfluous "WTF").
- remram 6y ago
  What if you want to get the name for a hex color? Your "opinion" is just assumptions on how the data structure will be used, which you want to bake into the transmission format itself.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    Then you're no worse off than if you had the original format. You'd have to iterate through the members in either case. That said, given there are just shy of 17 million possible RBG combinations, and a small fraction those are of named colors, I'd personally continue to optimize for the named color case.
    - remram 6y ago
      You should definitely optimize your data storage for the kind of operations you're going to do on them. However you're taking about the data transmission format here! Surely you wouldn't think of sending a piece of JSON over the wire with both name:color and rgb:color, regardless of whether that is what the recipient wants to operate on. You just have to let it unmarshall the data into whatever form it needs.

ajuc 6y ago

That's the point GP is making. Use JSON objects for dictionary-like structures instead of directly translating XML to JSON.

SamBam 6y ago
But the point is that it's always usage dependant. You key by color names, that seems obvious. But what if you want to look up a color by hex? Now you have to look through them all. What if this list is actually an order list of colors for different headings? And they can repeat? Then indexing by index is exactly what you want. Point is, you don't know the reason behind the data structure. (That said, I do wish the json had a standardized way to remove redundancy for objects that always follow the same structure. One list of property names, and then everything in arrays.)
- falcolas 6y ago
  > But what if you want to look up a color by hex? Now you have to look through them all. As you would with the original one as well. > Then indexing by index is exactly what you want. A much better use case. That said, the list order is kinda fragile, having an explicit row identifier might be worth adding. Especially since all of the columns are being explicitly called out instead of in their own list.

falcolas 6y ago

It's absolutely possible, yet the example doesn't do it. That's what the comment was calling out (plus a bit of superfluous "WTF").

remram 6y ago
What if you want to get the name for a hex color? Your "opinion" is just assumptions on how the data structure will be used, which you want to bake into the transmission format itself.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Then you're no worse off than if you had the original format. You'd have to iterate through the members in either case. That said, given there are just shy of 17 million possible RBG combinations, and a small fraction those are of named colors, I'd personally continue to optimize for the named color case.
  - remram 6y ago
    You should definitely optimize your data storage for the kind of operations you're going to do on them. However you're taking about the data transmission format here! Surely you wouldn't think of sending a piece of JSON over the wire with both name:color and rgb:color, regardless of whether that is what the recipient wants to operate on. You just have to let it unmarshall the data into whatever form it needs.