Comments on: Getting Started with JSON

By: ambaye

ambaye — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:39:28 +0000

it was interesting as my first guide of JSON

By: Ricardo Cabanelas

Ricardo Cabanelas — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:17:42 +0000

Well, all that stuff about JSON vs XML is just a point of view. Despite the reasons i do think that fast development is best achieved with json. It´s just too many languages and procedures to cope with, don´t you agree !

By: Top 10 Articles of 2010: Spring, Spring Security, Ext JS, Hibernate | Loiane Groner

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:38:35 +0000

[...] Getting Started with JSON discussed 10 times [...]

By: medical billing

medical billing — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:15:18 +0000

nice post. thanks.

By: SMiGL

SMiGL — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:39:06 +0000

Intresting post. Thanks!

By: DP

DP — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:17:54 +0000

Great article …. was very useful

By: Casey Jordan

Casey Jordan — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:35:49 +0000

Nice article. However I think you are being a little bias. My experience with JSON might help to balance some of your points. About 4 years ago the technology my company develops used JSON extensively ( Mainly because we wanted something lightweight ). However as application requirements increased it was apparent that JSON did not have the power necessary to produce the results we wanted. While XML and JSON are very similar, XML has many more standard ways to interact with the data ( client and server side ). Arguments about XML having no type is poor at best since XML Schemas, Schematron and other mechanisms provide much better ways to qualify and validate data than JSON can offer. Additional the ability to transform XML ( Both on the browser and server ) dwarf JSON. XSLT can run in most browsers an provides a much more sophisticated and powerful approach than JSON-T does. JSON also has security vulnerabilities as @Felipe Gaúcho mentioned as well little/no support server side.

So now, 4 years after we started our web application, and after alot of research and development there is almost no JSON left to be found. For our needs JSON just didn’t cut it and we haven’t noticed any performance issues from switching to JSON to XML ( Especially since all modern browsers use compression. Compressed XML is very close in size to compressed JSON ).

That being said, JSON is a fine technology for many applications, and if all you need is a simple browser based data exchange mechanism JSON might be a great fit.

Cheers,

Casey

By: Felipe Gaúcho

Felipe Gaúcho — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:46:57 +0000

ok, you are speaking in favor of JSON, but please include in that comparision box a big disclaimer on top saying it is only from the javascript eval() point of view ….. if you go to the server side, for example, it is the complete other way round.. where you have a robust support of parsing XML and a jungle of mess for parsing JSON contents

nice post ….

By: Loiane

Loiane — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:37:40 +0000

Thanks for correcting me guys!

I already changed the code and the text.

Cheers!

By: virgile

virgile — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:27:31 +0000

Wouldn’t it be better with a comma at the end of the line {“name”: “Battlestar Galactica”, “seasons”:4 } ?
Likewise, i’d say that there must be a comma at the end of line 13 and that hobby is an object with two properties, tvseries ans games.

By: Werner

Werner — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:34:44 +0000

Hi,

I was wondering if you did not forget a komma after the first property/value TVSeries.

Is games array also not a property on hobbies?

So hobbies would have two name/value pairs (TVSeries and games)

Correct me if I am wrong.

Cheers,

Werner

By: Amr ElGarhy

Amr ElGarhy — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:13:37 +0000

Nice article, simple and clear.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:04:37 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by loiane: Getting Started with JSON http://bit.ly/4NP4mv…