couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joscha Feth (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (COUCHDB-604) _changes feed with ?feed=continuous does not return valid JSON
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:58:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-604?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12793221#action_12793221
] 

Joscha Feth commented on COUCHDB-604:
-------------------------------------

OK, look, just because you never saw a Yeti, this doesn't mean it does not exist ;-)
I have a SAX-Style JSON parser at my hands here, which is way more efficient than any of the
Bean-based parsers out there - but thats really not the point here.

I think if the response says it is JSON, it should obey to the standard, whether it is harder
to use or not. This is not purism, but simply a well-defined interface. Everything else is
just a dirty hack which noone should rely on.
A multipart-response might work, but might as well be an overkill for this, as I agree Benoit
is right - most people will be fine using the line-by-line interface.
Documenting the deviation from the JSON format is a good start I think, but whats the reason
for not just having a flag which makes the ouptut valid JSON?

> _changes feed with ?feed=continuous does not return valid JSON
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-604
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-604
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: HTTP Interface
>    Affects Versions: 0.10
>            Reporter: Joscha Feth
>            Priority: Trivial
>
> When using the _changes interface via ?feed=continuous the JSON returned is rather 
> a stream of JSON documents than a valid JSON file itself:
> {"seq":38,"id":"f473fe61a8a53778d91c38b23ed6e20f","changes":[{"rev":"9-d3e71c7f5f991b26fe014d884a27087f"}]}
> {"seq":68,"id":"2a574814d61d9ec8a0ebbf43fa03d75b","changes":[{"rev":"6-67179f215e42d63092dc6b2199a3bf51"}],"deleted":true}
> {"seq":70,"id":"75dbdacca8e475f5909e3cc298905ef8","changes":[{"rev":"1-0dee261a2bd4c7fb7f2abd811974d3f8"}]}
> {"seq":71,"id":"09fb03236f80ea0680a3909c2d788e43","changes":[{"rev":"1-a9646389608c13a5c26f4c14c6863753"}]}
> to be valid there needs to be a root element (and then an array with commata) like in
the non-continuous feed:
> {"results":[
> {"seq":38,"id":"f473fe61a8a53778d91c38b23ed6e20f","changes":[{"rev":"9-d3e71c7f5f991b26fe014d884a27087f"}]},
> {"seq":68,"id":"2a574814d61d9ec8a0ebbf43fa03d75b","changes":[{"rev":"6-67179f215e42d63092dc6b2199a3bf51"}],"deleted":true},
> {"seq":70,"id":"75dbdacca8e475f5909e3cc298905ef8","changes":[{"rev":"1-0dee261a2bd4c7fb7f2abd811974d3f8"}]},
> {"seq":71,"id":"09fb03236f80ea0680a3909c2d788e43","changes":[{"rev":"1-a9646389608c13a5c26f4c14c6863753"}]},
> in short this means that if someone does not parse the change events in an object like
manner (e.g. waiting for a line-ending and then parsing the line), but using a SAX-like parser
(throwing events of each new object, etc.) and expecting the response to be JSON (which it
is not, because its not {x:[{},{},{}]} but {}{}{} which is not valid) there is an error thrown.
> I can see, that people doing this line by line might be okay with the above approach,
but the response is not valid JSON and it would be nice if there were a flag to make the response
valid JSON.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message