4 ms·
You didn't convinced me. The only reason I need binary encoding for JSON, is to be able to efficiently transfer binary fields. With UBJSON I will need to encod
by nivertech 15y ago
You didn't convinced me.
The only reason I need binary encoding for JSON, is to be able to efficiently transfer binary fields.
With UBJSON I will need to encode them as BASE64.
There are lots of libraries for BSON, so I will continue to use it, even if it's not a pure JSON.
For mass adoption UBJSON should be implemented in browsers and also in jquery and node.js.
- rkalla 15y agoI wasn't trying to convince you; only point out that it might be the wrong tool for the job you are trying to accomplish. > "The only reason I need binary encoding for JSON, is to be able to efficiently transfer binary fields" That isn't the goal of the UBJSON project; it is to make a 1:1 compatible, efficient representation of JSON. It sounds like you already have BSON working in every way you need it to though, so that is good news. As for UBJSON implementations, there is already a Node.js implementation and as for in-browser support, I am specifically waiting for native binary data support in JavaScript (don't have the spec link handy) and then it will be possible. I do appreciate the feedback though; knowing how people are wanting to use the spec or problems they are trying to solve is important and you gave me a good data point to consider.