Re: additional json functionality

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Josh Berkus
<spandir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:josh@agliodbs.com" target="_blank">josh@agliodbs.com</a>></span> wrote:<br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div
class="im">On11/15/2013 04:00 PM, David Johnston wrote:<br /> > Looking at this a different way: could we just
implementBSON and leave json<br /> > alone?<br /> ><br /> > <a href="http://bsonspec.org/"
target="_blank">http://bsonspec.org/</a><br/><br /></div>In short?  No.<br /><br /> For one thing, our storage format
isdifferent from theirs (better,<br /> frankly), and as a result is not compliant with their
"standard".</blockquote></div><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">Not being super familiar with either BSON our JSONB
whatadvantages are we gaining from the difference?<br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">It might be interesting if
wesupported the same binary representation so we could have a binary send/recv routines that don't need to do any
serialization/deserialization.Especially since a standard format would potentially be skipping the
serialization/deserializationon both the server and client.<br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"
/><br/>-- <br />greg<br /></div></div>