On 10/19/2010 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Terry Laurenzo<tj@laurenzo.org> wrote:
>> - It is directly iterable without parsing and/or constructing an AST
>> - It is its own representation. If iterating and you want to tear-off a
>> value to be returned or used elsewhere, its a simple buffer copy plus some
>> bit twiddling.
>> - It is conceivable that clients already know how to deal with BSON,
>> allowing them to work with the internal form directly (ala MongoDB)
>> - It stores a wider range of primitive types than JSON-text. The most
>> important are Date and binary.
> When last I looked at that, it appeared to me that what BSON could
> represent was a subset of what JSON could represent - in particular,
> that it had things like a 32-bit limit on integers, or something along
> those lines. Sounds like it may be neither a superset nor a subset,
> in which case I think it's a poor choice for an internal
> representation of JSON.
Yeah, if it can't handle arbitrary precision numbers as has previously
been stated it's dead in the water for our purposes, I think.
cheers
andrew