|
#realJSOP wrote: This crap shoulda been fixed YEARS ago.
"Technical debt".
If there was ever a great example to use as a definition, this is it.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you prefer to always wrap the JSON in an outer object?
For example, a call to a credit card processor to get supported credit cards. Do you prefer simply the array returned:
[
"AM",
"DI",
"EB",
"EP",
"MC",
"VI"
]
or the array wrapped in an outer "object":
{
"PaymentMethods": [
"AM",
"DI",
"EB",
"EP",
"MC",
"VI"
]
}
If one or the other, why?
Personally, I'm leaning toward the second form, which forces the Javascript writer to at least initially use the PaymentMethods tag:
let ccs = resp.PaymentMethods;
Which I think improves code readability. It's also more maintainable IMO, as perhaps other tags at some point might be added -- one simple thing that comes to mind is a flag that indicates whether ACH is supported (mind you, these are all concrete examples of the general question of JSON tags):
{
"PaymentMethods": [
"AM",
"DI",
"EB",
"EP",
"MC",
"VI"
],
"SupportsACH": true
}
Using an outer object wrapper doesn't break the code if additional JSON elements are added later.
So...thoughts?
Marc
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of an obvious reply:
If there's more than one dimension to the data then I want the outer objects.
Otherwise, although I prefer it to be clean (data really doesn't include a 'header'), so long as I know it's coming it's no big deal.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The outer object is important because even if currently there aren't any extra data items, such as the ACH you mentioned, yet, inevitably there will be and this could cause a failure in the simpler case while being handled smoothly with an outer object wrapping things up nicely. 
Having said that, many past members of projects I have worked on didn't get the memo... 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: inevitably there will be and this could cause a failure in the simpler case while being handled smoothly with an outer object wrapping things up nicely.
My thoughts as well.
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
2nd one for sure, helps with deserialization as well. You end up with a better formed object model.
|
|
|
|
|
No-brainer. 2nd as you say.
Another reason is: another day, another person may look at your data or code. That other person might be yourself, in a galaxy far far away. I usually like to spend good time on naming things cleanly.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I go with the second version as well and for the reasons stated. We all know that the only thing constant is change so the second form is a no brainer!
I do all my own stunts, but never intentionally!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
I think the first example is not valid JSON, there again I am not a JSON expert.
Definitely go with the second one!
Edit] turns out I am wrong about the not valid statement I made -JSON[^]
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 3-Apr-19 9:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: turns out I am wrong about the not valid statement I made
Given I copied the response from the actual service call....
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Just because a service call works, doesn't mean it is correct. Many internet services incorrectly implement the rfc (dns, smtp, many more...).
|
|
|
|
|
I also thought that a valid JSON document has to have a root object. Is it not the case then?
Anyways, I prefer the first one because it's shorter, and since it is a response, you should already well know what's gonna be in it: exactly the data requested.
However, I have had some issues with the Java JSON library being unable to parse arrays by themselves. As a result, the way it's implemented in production right now (as suggested by StackOverflow :P ) is as follows:
- JSON comes in on the network, looking like the first example you gave
- Function checks if it starts with '[' and finds that yes, it does
- So it appends some string around the received text, making it look like the second one
- JSON lib parses this. The returned JsonObject's only JsonArray member is saved, the rest discarded
- Prod code gets this JsonArray back to do whatever
Fun times!
"I don't think about dying. It is the last thing I want to do. " - theoldfool
|
|
|
|
|
The outer object is redundant. I prefer the array when it is an array.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the road that is more and more "less travelled" - the right way, which is the 2nd option.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention the newest crop of "programmers" that we're starting to see...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: newest crop of "programmers" that we're starting to see...
"Starting", he said...
Never lose your sense of humor, JSOP.
|
|
|
|
|
Also it very much depends on how you organise your server side code. Do you serialise lists or dictionary of objects.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Second, of course. Unless I try to go bonkers, then it is this:
[{
"PropertySet": [{
"Id": "1",
"Name": "fancyProperty",
"Type": "String",
"IsArray": "true"
}],
"ValueSet": [{
"PropertySetId": "1",
"Value": "AM"
},
{
"PropertySetId": "1",
"Value": "DI"
},
{
"PropertySetId": "1",
"Value": "EB"
},
{
"PropertySetId": "1",
"Value": "EP"
},
{
"PropertySetId": "1",
"Value": "MC"
},
{
"PropertySetId": "1",
"Value": "VI"
}
]
}]
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second. As you say it's maintainable, plus more easily extensible, and I like having an actual name by which to refer to the data (just seems easier when debugging in DevTools)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I swear I read that subject line as "JSOP responses".
I thought I was about to read something with a title such as "The Complete Works of JSOP: All the Sage Wisdom and Life Advice You'll Ever Need as a Collection of One Liners".
|
|
|
|
|
do you prefer C# method to return
List<T> GetSomeData<T>()
or
T GetSomeData<T>()
if one or the other, why?
Personally I don't care either way.
Same for JSON.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the latter. As you point out, it's future-proofed for additions.
Also, it can be easily deserialized into a C# object using something like Newtonsoft. That's where I'm generally consuming these data.
That might be an important consideration; just because nobody's planning to deserialize into C# (or whatever) today, it means no refactoring when they do.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I prefer to always have the response wrapped.
First, it makes it easier to extend in the future without breaking things.
I have been around long enough, that code I wrote in the 1980s is still being used today!
And the hardest thing to adjust is the data structure changes, because it impacts everything!
Next, it just seems more consistent to always be wrapped. I could be biased by using a system or two that were always wrapped. And their inner objects were always consistent objects, and moveable between other container objects.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
