Re: 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
>