2 ms·
> the directly-equivalent JSON [["field1","field2","fieldN"], ["value (0,0)","value (0,1)","value (0,n)"], ["value (1,0)","value (1,1)","value (1
by munchler 2y ago
> the directly-equivalent JSON
[["field1","field2","fieldN"],
["value (0,0)","value (0,1)","value (0,n)"],
["value (1,0)","value (1,1)","value (1,n)"],
["value (2,0)","value (2,1)","value (2,n)"]]
I think it's a big stretch to use that JSON for comparison. In practice, one is much more likely to see this:
[
{
"field1": "value (0,0)",
"field2": "value (0,1)",
"fieldN": "value (0,n)"
},
{
"field1": "value (1,0)",
"field2": "value (1,1)",
"fieldN": "value (1,n)"
},
{
"field1": "value (2,0)",
"field2": "value (2,1)",
"fieldN": "value (2,n)"
}
]
- hajile 2y agoWhile most people would prefer the second version, the first version is also valid JSON and will definitely see use when you want/need JSON but want to reduce data over the wire though you'd probably still see a wrapper object like: { headers: ["field1","field2","fieldN"], values: [["value (0,0)","value (0,1)","value (0,n)"], ["value (1,0)","value (1,1)","value (1,n)"], ["value (2,0)","value (2,1)","value (2,n)"]] }