On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 10 Mar 2009, at 13:07, Paul Davis wrote:

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Dean Landolt <dean@deanlandolt.com>
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:43:16AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:

Haven't we discussed this before? Or am I just getting a weird déjà vu?
Well, we've certainly discussed JSON paths, JSON queries, and JSON

I didn't think this specific suggestion has come up before, apologies.

I still think this is low hanging RFC fruit. Heh

We had discussed JSONPath, which at first glance this is, but it looks
they cleaned it up quite a bit. It's even got pythonic list slices so
is definitely *not* javascript -- it's just that the reference
implementation is in js, and that's the only implementation...for now.

Looking at the new spec, I've already implemented half of this in python
I'd be happy to take it all the way if this would help formalize path
semantics in couch.
If its done in JS its probably done in Python [1] (shameless plug).
The bigger issue is how to get an Erlang implementation. I mentioned
to Jan about trying to link spidermonkey directly into the Erlang VM.
He said some guys have tried and it ended in abandonment because JS
was too unstable. Though it does sound like a fun experiment.
"Some Guys" being the original Erlang & OTP developers :) They do not
recommend going down that route.

What do they know ;)

But actually Paul, I was just mentioning a pure python parser as a proof of
concept to show JSONQuery doesn't need js. In fact, if you look at the new
spec Noah linked to, it's not even *close *to js (it strikes me as more like
a jumble of python and ruby with some xpath tossed in).

As an example of what I mean, JSONSchema already has an implementation in
another language (in this case, python again[1]). And JSONQuery even less
javascript-idiomatic. If you'd like, I'd be happy to try my hand at
implementing it in erlang -- but I was thinking it would be most helpful for
view ops (thus, in js). It would be pretty convenient if there were
agreed-upon path semantics -- specifically for things like searching.

[1] http://code.google.com/p/jsonschema/

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 8 of 18 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupuser @
postedMar 10, '09 at 9:55a
activeSep 7, '09 at 5:13p



site design / logo © 2018 Grokbase