Re: Call for Votes: JSON location

Pierre wrote:

On 4/8/06, Joshua Eichorn <josh@bluga.net> wrote:

Pierre wrote:

    
On 4/7/06, Daniel Convissor <danielc@analysisandsolutions.com> wrote:

      
Folks:

The JSON class has been waiting some time for a decision on which category is best. So, let's do a quick vote, please. I'll tally them up on Tuesday afternoon, America/New York time. Here are the options: Services/JSON HTML/JSON Text/JSON JSON/JSON JSON/Encode|Decode|RPC That last option would have separate classes/files for each operation.

What's about a one to one mapping to pecl/json? It will allow a smooth migration from php4 to the php 5 versions which will include it. It is not OO but who needs a OO interface for such interface? --Pierre

Unless they are making major changes before bundling, the current JSON extension is just 2 functions json_encode and json_decode

Yes, is it a problem? --Pierre For my use in HTML_AJAX not at all, but im not sure how, you would fit that into the pear packaging standards, or if you really would want too. Since even if you wrapped it in functions_exists you don't have a good way of guaranteeing that the c code and the php code output the same thing. Of course this is mainly a problem on the decode where you have to make choices about using assoc arrays or objects I'd expect you'd want the code in PEAR to match the extension but i don't know how easy of a job that is too do. My extent of working with the code has been patching around utf-8 encoding problems. -josh