Re: additional json functionality

On 11/18/2013 05:19 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 11/17/2013 08:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Now, if it turns out that the new hstore is not dealing with json input
>>> and output, we could have json, jstore and hstore.
>> Jstore isn't the worst name suggestion I've heard on this thread. The
>> reason I prefer JSONB though, is that a new user looking for a place to
>> put JSON data will clearly realize that JSON and JSONB are alternatives
>> and related in some way. They won't necessarily expect that "jstore"
>> has anything to do with JSON, especially when there is another type
>> called "JSON". Quite a few people are liable to think it's something to
>> do with Java.
>>
>> Besides, we might get sued by these people: http://www.jstor.org/ ;-)
>>
>
> I don't think any name that doesn't begin with "json" is acceptable.
> I could live with "jsonb". It has the merit of brevity, but maybe it's
> a tad
> too close to "json" to be the right answer.
How about jsondoc, or jsonobj ?

It is still reasonably 'json' but not too easy to confuse with existing
json
when typing

And it perhaps hints better at the main difference from string-json, namely
that it is an object and not textual source code / notation / processing
info .

Cheers

--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ