You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
blog.andrewvc.com
You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#2http://bsonspec.org/ is another such alternative.
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#3Zip both resulting strings and I bet you it's a wash. Since JSON is mostly used (at least by me) for sending data to client side javascript, it doesn't make a difference. JSON is just easier.
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#4Because many other programs understand JSON.
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#5Because it isn't human readable, which will make debugging it far less convenient than glancing at some JSON in a browser (or in Firebug).
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#6http://bsonspec.org/ is another such alternative.
Yes. The first thing I said when I saw this post was "How is this different than BSON?" Given that BSON is the basis of MongoDB's storage engine, I'm pretty confident in it and probably won't be moving over to MessagePack anytime soon.
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#7There's also TNetStrings which mongrel2 is using now. (http://tnetstrings.org/)
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#8because when JSON is Gzip'd there's only around ~5% in it: http://goo.gl/b2Uur (the bit on geojson).
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#9Because MessagePack doesn't work in MacRuby.
Re: You're Using JSON, Why not MessagePack?
#10Because it isn't human readable, which will make debugging it far less convenient than glancing at some JSON in a browser (or in Firebug).
That and its not native. Still might make sense to replace json with it on performance sensitive projects after major development is complete.