Here people confidently keep repeating "streaming JSON". What do you mean by that? I'm genuinely curios.
Do you mean XML SAX-like interface? If so, how do you deal with repeated keys in "hash tables"? Do you first translate JSON into intermediate objects (i.e. arrays, hash-tables) and then transform them into application-specific structures, or do you try to skip the intermediate step?
I mean, streaming tokens is kind of worthless on its own. If you are going for SAX-like interface, you want to be able to go all the way with streaming (i.e. in no layer of the code that reads JSON you don't "accumulate" data (esp. not possibly indefinitely) until it can be sent to the layer above that).
This works fine under a SAX like interface in a streaming JSON parser - your 'event handler' code will execute for a given key, and a 2nd time for the duplicate.
This is a very strange way of using the word "fine"... What if the value that lives in the key triggers some functionality in the application that should never happen due to the semantics you just botched by executing it?
So, you are saying that it's "fine" for an application to execute the first followed by second, even though the semantics of the above are that only the second one is the one that should have an effect?
Sorry, I have to disagree with your "works fine" assessment.
you're layering the application semantics into the transport format.
It's fine, in the sense that a JSON with duplicate keys is already invalid - but the parser might handle it, and i suggested a way (just from reading the stackoverflow answer).
It's the same "fine" that you get from undefined C compiler behaviour.
Why do you keep inventing stuff... No, JSON with duplicate keys is not invalid. The whole point of streaming is to be able to process data before it completely arrived. What "layering semantics" are you talking about?
This has no similarity with undefined behavior. This is documented and defined.
A JSON object with duplicate keys is explicitly defined by the spec as undefined behavior, and is left up to the individual implementation to decide what to do. It's neither valid nor invalid.
Do you mean XML SAX-like interface? If so, how do you deal with repeated keys in "hash tables"? Do you first translate JSON into intermediate objects (i.e. arrays, hash-tables) and then transform them into application-specific structures, or do you try to skip the intermediate step?
I mean, streaming tokens is kind of worthless on its own. If you are going for SAX-like interface, you want to be able to go all the way with streaming (i.e. in no layer of the code that reads JSON you don't "accumulate" data (esp. not possibly indefinitely) until it can be sent to the layer above that).