[Web-SIG] Time a for JSON parser in the standard library?

[Guido van Rossum]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Alan Kennedy <pywebsig at xhaus.com> wrote:
>  > [Deron]
>  >  > (I just joined this list, so this reponse may not be threaded properly)
>  >
>  >  [Bob]
>  >
>  > > I wasn't subscribed to the list at the time this came up, but I'm all
>  >  > for getting simplejson into the stdlib.
>  >
>  >  Well, it appears we have a quorum of JSON<->python codec writers,
>  >  since I've written a jython module that I'd like to interoperate with
>  >  cpython codecs. I think it's appropriate for any discussions of JSON
>  >  to take place on the web-sig.
>  >
>  >  I've been thinking about how to take this forward. I see two ways
>
>  Are there *really* competing implementations? I mean, it seems that
>  pretty much everyone uses simplejson, at least in the web framework
>  world. If someone writes a test for BMP, we'll fix it. As far as byte
>  encoding detection I think that's beyond the scope of a JSON
>  implementation and I think it's unnecessary in the first place.

I'm reading Alan's post as saying that he has a competing implementation.

But I believe that both approaches Alan offers are overkill: he
proposes something like the db-API, where there are multiple
implementations of the same API (except in the case of the db-API they
aren't necessarily 100% interchangeable). It'm sorry for Alan, but I'd
much rather pick one implementation (simplejson), fix 1-2 minor issues
with it, and put it into the standard library. Anything else is just a
lot of opportunity for endless debate without much benefit.

>  As far as Jython support goes, I suppose that's probably fixable
>  without too much effort. I would imagine that the problems are just in
>  the decoder, because of the sre_* module (ab)use. Was there some other
>  reason for writing a Jython-specific codec?

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)