2010/10/5 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3.14159@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If he doesn't respond, or outright refuses (which I, for one, doubt
>>> will happen), my fallback plan is to rewrite the JSON validation code
>>> by drawing from my original code (meaning it won't be in bison/flex)
>>> and post a patch for it. Unfortunately, it seems to me that there
>>> aren't very many ways of expressing a JSON parser in bison/flex, and
>>> thus the idea of JSON parsing with bison/flex is effectively locked
>>> down by the GPL unless we can get a more permissive license for
>>> jsonval. But, I am not a lawyer.
>
>> If someone who hasn't looked at the GPL code sits down and codes
>> something up based on the json.org home page, it's hard to imagine how
>> anyone could be grumpy about that.
>
> Yeah. Joseph seems to be confusing copyrights with patents. The idea
> of "parse JSON with bison/flex" is not patentable by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
> But having said that, I wonder whether bison/flex are really the best
> tool for the job in the first place. From what I understand of JSON
> (which admittedly ain't much) a bison parser seems like overkill:
> it'd probably be both bloated and slow compared to a simple handwritten
> recursive-descent parser.
PostgreSQL use a bison for same simple things - cube, PostGis,
bootstrap .. so I don't see some special overhead. I am thinking so
lex can be shared from core parser. bison parser for JSON means a less
rows for maintaining a repeating some a basic pattern in pg source
code.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
./contrib/seg/segparse.y
./contrib/cube/cubeparse.y
./src/backend/bootstrap/bootparse.y
./src/backend/parser/gram.y
./src/pl/plpgsql/src/gram.y
./src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/preproc.y
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>