Re: SQLJSON

Hi Markus,

While I think that would be a wonderful idea, my experience in the last 15
years of working with this driver is that nobody will respond to your
question. That being said feel free to take a poll, or otherwise solicit
responses.

Dave Cramer

dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca

On 28 June 2015 at 11:13, Markus KARG <markus(at)headcrashing(dot)eu> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be more clever to ask the pgjdbc *users* what *they* expect to
> get instead of solely relying upon us three? As the discussion turned out,
> we have fundamentally diverse opinions, and I doubt that we will do it any
> right if we just do "something" simply for the benefit of writing "JSON
> support" on our driver.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* pgsql-jdbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:
> pgsql-jdbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] *On Behalf Of *Dave Cramer
> *Sent:* Sonntag, 28. Juni 2015 15:56
> *To:* Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
> *Cc:* List
> *Subject:* Re: [JDBC] SQLJSON
>
>
>
> So I think we should support JSR 353 at the very least Whether we extend
> the result set or not we can at a minimum return a JsonValue from getObject
>
>
>
> I agree with Alvaro, 99% of the users would just like a JsonValue
> returned. It would be nice if we could design this so more advanced users
> could plug in their parser of choice.
>
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
> http://www.credativ.ca
>
>
>
> On 28 June 2015 at 06:00, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On 28/06/15 11:51, Markus KARG wrote:
>
> It is not *us* who let the JSON users down, it is the PostgreSQL protocol
> guys who did not add any useful support for JSON. A driver is not a
> compensation for missing product features, it is just a thin wrapper around
> the base product's features.
>
> To have proper JSON support at the protocol level (something which I'd
> love to have) only translates to more performance, no more functionality.
> So is a nice-to-have, not a must-to-have (as is supporting PostgreSQL's
> json data types).
>
>
> I mean, what happens if the application shall work with a different
> product?
> If you rely on non-JDBC-features, you're screwed. So a profession
> application using JSON should ALWAYS come with JSR 253 anyways.
>
> We have had to extend JDBC in several ways in the past. We should do
> it again, now, in the best possible manner (getObject, PGResultSet,
> whatever). And then, if JDBC adds support in the future, retrofit into it.
> But not wait until then, because we don't even know if that would even
> happen.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Álvaro
>
>
> --
> Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
>
>
> -----------
> 8Kdata
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-jdbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Álvaro Hernández
> Tortosa
> Sent: Sonntag, 28. Juni 2015 11:44
> To: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [JDBC] SQLJSON
>
>
> On 28/06/15 11:17, Markus KARG wrote:
>
> I do not see the benefit of that effort, as getting JSON as a LONG VARCHAR
> and then parsing it on behalf of the application is pretty simple and
> straightforward. My vote would be to not do anything until JDBC 4.3 of
>
> JDBC
>
> 5.0 provides a standard API for dealing with JSON inside of the driver or
>
> at
>
> least PostgreSQL 9.5 or PostgreSQL 10 provides a streaming protocol for
>
> JSON
>
> and / or XML.
>
> Don't do anything?
>
> And let Java PostgreSQL users down, without a (driver, supported)
> means of getting JSON out of their database? So we make the "marketing"
> that 9.4 is all about jsonb and the NoSQL replacement yet you cannot do
> JSON with Java?
>
> Really?
>
> User's don't care about extreme performance. Users care about easy
> of use and decent set of features. Adding JSON support, even thought
> it's not the most performant one is something we should be doing as
> quickly as possible.
>
> Regards,
>
> Álvaro
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc
>
>
>