# [VOTE] jsond

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/81134
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/81134
- Started by Jakub Zelenka on 2015-01-25T17:29:54+00:00
- Messages: 13
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #81134 — Jakub Zelenka — 2015-01-25T17:29:54+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81134

Hi All!

Voting on jsond is now open:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jsond

It's a simple Yes/No vote whether jsond should replace the current json
extension in PHP 7.

Cheers

Jakub

---

## #81135 — Andrea Faulds — 2015-01-25T18:07:10+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81135 · In reply to: #81134

Hi Jakub,

What’s the status of the Preserve Fractional Part RFC with relation to the jsond extension?

I’d like to know that before voting.

Thanks.

> 
> 
> Hi All!
> 
> Voting on jsond is now open:
> 
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jsond
> 
> It's a simple Yes/No vote whether jsond should replace the current json
> extension in PHP 7.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jakub

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/

---

## #81139 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2015-01-25T18:27:42+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81139 · In reply to: #81134

Hi!

> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jsond
> 
> It's a simple Yes/No vote whether jsond should replace the current json
> extension in PHP 7.

Please do not forget to add all BC-breaking changes in UPGRADING
(currently not part of the patch).

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

---

## #81140 — Jakub Zelenka — 2015-01-25T18:51:14+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81140 · In reply to: #81135

Hi


>
> What’s the status of the Preserve Fractional Part RFC with relation to the
> jsond extension?
>

The preserve fractional part RFC has been accepted as a non-default option.
It's also non-default option in jsond and the proposed patch.

You probably ask me because I wanted to make it default. :) However I don't
want to change it if the flag is already in. It would make mess in the
default flag (option) value which would be changed from 0 and complicate
the current way of enabling and disabling flags - people would have look to
the doc to see what the default is and then OR this option with their
settings if they wanted to keep the default and add a new flag - that would
be just wrong IMHO... It means that I don't have any plans to propose such
thing. And even if I had, it wouldn't be part of this RFC. ;)

Cheers

Jakub

---

## #81141 — Jakub Zelenka — 2015-01-25T18:58:28+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81141 · In reply to: #81139

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Please do not forget to add all BC-breaking changes in UPGRADING
> (currently not part of the patch).
>

Just added in
https://github.com/bukka/php-src/commit/22394b79423b6c4eab3d43e246e03fc3feedfff5
. ;)

Thanks

---

## #81144 — Juan Basso — 2015-01-25T23:02:52+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81144 · In reply to: #81135

Andrea,


I did a PR to Jakub's branch with changes of preserve fractional part rfc
after it was approved. His branch has the same implementation that was
merged into 5.6, but adapted to master.

Also, as he mentioned, the same behavior, options disabled by default.


Juan Baso


> Hi Jakub,
>
> What’s the status of the Preserve Fractional Part RFC with relation to the
> jsond extension?
>
> I’d like to know that before voting.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > […]
>
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/

---

## #81146 — Andrea Faulds — 2015-01-25T23:23:34+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81146 · In reply to: #81144

> 
> 
> Andrea,
> 
> 
> I did a PR to Jakub's branch with changes of preserve fractional part rfc after it was approved. His branch has the same implementation that was merged into 5.6, but adapted to master.
> 
> Also, as he mentioned, the same behavior, options disabled by default.

Alright, thanks!
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/

---

## #81151 — Remi Collet — 2015-01-26T08:04:25+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81151 · In reply to: #81134

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le 25/01/2015 18:29, Jakub Zelenka a écrit :
> Hi All!
> 
> Voting on jsond is now open:
> 
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jsond
> 
> It's a simple Yes/No vote whether jsond should replace the current
> json extension in PHP 7.

Minor notice:
- - php 5.x use version 1.2.x
- - pecl/jsonc and pecl/jsond (for 5.x) use version 1.3.x

I think it will make sense to bump release to 1.4.0, so this can be
test at runtime.

Remi.

> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jakub
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlTF9QkACgkQYUppBSnxahjWEgCg+hL4EzAdjLLVbPdE9K//aNQZ
TuoAn3+t+F9x8KJfVEev4ew3bwShVmu9
=ztQk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE

---

## #81174 — Levi Morrison — 2015-01-26T20:07:07+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81174 · In reply to: #81134

> Voting on jsond is now open:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jsond
>
> It's a simple Yes/No vote whether jsond should replace the current json
> extension in PHP 7.

Before I vote I want to double-check something that I didn't find
explicitly mentioned in the RFC and at a quick glance in the
implementation I couldn't tell either: does this support any
non-standard features such as comments? I am hoping that the lack of
it being mentioned means it isn't there, but I want to double-check
first.

---

## #81176 — Jakub Zelenka — 2015-01-26T20:51:13+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81176 · In reply to: #81151

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Le 25/01/2015 18:29, Jakub Zelenka a écrit :
> > […]
>
> Minor notice:
> - - php 5.x use version 1.2.x
> - - pecl/jsonc and pecl/jsond (for 5.x) use version 1.3.x
>
> I think it will make sense to bump release to 1.4.0, so this can be
> test at runtime.
>
> Remi.
>
>
It makes sense.

I was just about to bump it when I realized that there is still outdated
package.json . Is there any reason why it should be kept? It's very
outdated and looks to me that it was just copied when the original
extension got in.

It's also a bit inconsistent for other extensions (some have package.json
but most don't) so I would like to check before removing it... Is there any
use for packages.json in the core ext?

---

## #81177 — Jakub Zelenka — 2015-01-26T20:54:14+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81177 · In reply to: #81174

> > […]
>
> Before I vote I want to double-check something that I didn't find
> explicitly mentioned in the RFC and at a quick glance in the
> implementation I couldn't tell either: does this support any
> non-standard features such as comments? I am hoping that the lack of
> it being mentioned means it isn't there, but I want to double-check
> first.


No extra features ;). It's the same as the old one except the BC change
mentioned in the RFC

Cheers

Jakub

---

## #81526 — Pascal MARTIN — 2015-02-01T09:43:23+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81526 · In reply to: #81134

> Voting on jsond is now open:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jsond
>

Hi,

After talking about this RFC with other people at AFUP, we are +1.

Basically, fixing licensing problems is important in itself.
This should also help having the same official JSON extension in all 
distributions. And, in this case, it comes without too much BC-break.

-- 
Pascal MARTIN, AFUP - French UG
http://php-internals.afup.org/

---

## #81532 — Jakub Zelenka — 2015-02-01T17:12:41+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/81134#81532 · In reply to: #81134

> Hi All!
>
> Voting on jsond is now open:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jsond
>
> It's a simple Yes/No vote whether jsond should replace the current json
> extension in PHP 7.
>
>
>
The RFC has been accepted 32:0 .

I'm just requesting src karma to merge it and maintain it. Hopefully
someone will grant it to me and I'll merge it to master soon :)

Thanks everyone for supporting this RFC.

Cheers

Jakub