JSON Methods?
On 9/2/07, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com> wrote:
I was wondering about the new JSON methods:
Object.prototype.toJSONString String.prototype.parseJSON
to me, parseJSON seems like it should not be a String prototype method.
I'm thinking about other "parse" type of methods, like Date.parse( s );
Here, it's fairly obvious what parse should return -- A Date.
Date.parse() returns a number, not a Date. E262-3 15.9.4.2 first paragraph.
Well, at least it's not String.prototype.parseDate, that would make even less sense, don't you agree?
Sure, but only because we have a Date object. We don't have a JSON object, because JSON is not a "thing".
Is that really true? I think JSON is a definable thing.
JSON - JavaScript Object Notation.
"JSON is a data interchange format which is based on a safe subset of JavaScript. JSON can represent simple or complex structured data. JSON cannot represent functions or expressions. It is strictly data. It has very specific rules of syntax, so it is very straightforward to determine that a JSON text is syntactically correct. A JSON text can easily be converted into a JavaScript value, which makes it a very convenient format for use with JavaScript. There is support for use of JSON with many other languages, including C#, Java, Perl, PHP, Python, and Ruby. More information on JSON can be found at www.JSON.org."
FROM: www.json.org/JSONRequest.html
String.prototype.parseJSON, Object.prototype.toJSONString are already in the draft, are they not?
So, I proposed a revision of those two methods in two different classes.
Some other considerations to having a cohesive JSON class: pros:
- one place where security issues can be managed (there will be more ;)
- separate JSON object for developers to iterate over (vs for-in for Object object)
- doesn't add more methods to String or Object
- one place to maintain the JSON source code (String, Object)
- API documentation can be more easily unified (and read)
cons:
- creates a new global symbol in the language
The definitions and discussion about JSON is here: www.json.org/JSONRequest.html, www.json.org
I was wondering about the new JSON methods:
Object.prototype.toJSONString String.prototype.parseJSON
to me, parseJSON seems like it should not be a String prototype method.
I'm thinking about other "parse" type of methods, like Date.parse( s );
Here, it's fairly obvious what parse should return -- A Date.
A parse method always parses a string, and in any well-designed API, returns an object of the class it's bound to. We've already seen this with Date.parse(), in other languages, like Java, there are Integer.parseInt, Double.parseDouble.
It seems to me to make more sense to put parseJSON on object, but then since JSON is a subset of Object, why not just put it as a subclass of Object?
Object + | JSON
It seems to me, that Object.prototype.toJSONString could be also implemented on a JSON instance.
JSON
constructor: JSON( object ) static JSON parse( s ) throws SyntaxError JSON.prototype.toString( ) JSON.prototype.isValid( )
Garrett
I was wondering about the new JSON methods: Object.prototype.toJSONString String.prototype.parseJSON to me, parseJSON seems like it should not be a String prototype method. I'm thinking about other "parse" type of methods, like Date.parse( s ); Here, it's fairly obvious what parse should return -- A Date. A parse method always parses a string, and in any well-designed API, returns an object of the class it's bound to. We've already seen this with Date.parse(), in other languages, like Java, there are Integer.parseInt, Double.parseDouble. It seems to me to make more sense to put parseJSON on object, but then since JSON is a subset of Object, why not just put it as a subclass of Object? Object + | JSON It seems to me, that Object.prototype.toJSONString could be also implemented on a JSON instance. JSON constructor: JSON( object ) static JSON parse( s ) throws SyntaxError JSON.prototype.toString( ) JSON.prototype.isValid( ) Garrett -- Programming is a collaborative art.