On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>
>> but BSON pidgenholes numeric values to either double, int32, int64, or
>> a 12-byte MongoDB Object ID. Thus, for people who expect JSON to be
>> able to hold arbitrary-precision numbers (which the JSON data type in
>> my patch can), using BSON for transfer or storage will violate that
>> expectation.
>
> Good lord. I'd suggest that maybe we wait for BSON v. 2.0 instead.
>
> Is BSON even any kind of a standard?
You know that if it were a standard, it would be WORSE!
:-)
This falls into big time "no way!"
If there was a standardized binary encoding for XML that was
effectively a tree (e.g. - more or less like a set of Lisp objects
with CAR/CDR linkages), that would be somewhat interesting, as it
could be both comparatively compact, and perhaps offer rapid
navigation through the tree. BSON doesn't sound like that!
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html