From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Duplicate JSON Object Keys |
Date: | 2013-03-09 02:01:29 |
Message-ID: | 20130309020129.GA15861@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:34:20PM +0100, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 03/08/2013 10:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Hannu Krosing escribi?:
>>> If it does not meet these "semantic" constraints, then it is not
>>> really JSON - it is merely JSON-like.
>> Is it wrong? The standard cited says SHOULD, not MUST.
>
>
> I think one MAY start implementation with loose interpretation of
> SHOULD, but if at all possible we SHOULD implement the
> SHOULD-qualified features :)
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt:
>
> SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
That "SHOULD" in section 2.2 of RFC 4627 constrains JSON data, not JSON
parsers. Section 4 addresses parsers, saying "A JSON parser MUST accept all
texts that conform to the JSON grammar."
> We might start with just throwing a warning for duplicate keys, but I
> can see no good reason to do so. Except ease of implementation and with
> current JSON-AS-TEXT implenetation performance.
Since its departure from a "SHOULD" item does not impugn the conformance of an
input text, it follows that json_in(), to be a conforming JSON parser, MUST
not reject objects with duplicate keys.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-03-09 03:34:54 | Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2013-03-09 01:32:01 | Re: Enabling Checksums |