Re: [cclib-devel] Further JSON support

[Noel O'B. <bao...@gm...>]

On 19/11/2007, Karol Langner <kar...@kn...> wrote:
> On Monday 19 November 2007 15:21, Noel O'Boyle wrote:
> > On 19/11/2007, Karol Langner <kar...@kn...> wrote:
> > > On Monday 19 November 2007 14:38, Noel O'Boyle wrote:
> > > > Do we really need support for three JSON libraries? We can just bundle
> > > > simplejson (or one of the others if their licenses permit) with cclib.
> > >
> > > I don't like it either, but it seems to be the simplest fix for now if I
> > > want to use cjson. Bundling is probably the best final solution. I would
> > > opt for cjson in that case, although it is a C extension and would
> > > require compilation upon install, which cclib has avoided up to now.
> >
> > Yes - I wouldn't like to do this for the 'core' parsing.
>
> Does this mean you would consider C extensions appropriate for ex.
> cclib.methods if they made them ore efficient?

I think I've answered this on another thread a few weeks ago. The
short answer is yes.

> > How about
> > changing so that rather than passing in a module, you just pass in the
> > dump/load function? Then cclib wouldn't have to do any of this. The
> > user would do "from simplejson import dumps", and then pass "dumps" as
> > a parameter to write_json.
>
> I'm not sure I understand: you propose to bundle a pure python JSON module for
> the default (simplejson or json), and add an optional dumps/loads argument if
> the user wants an alternate function?
Maybe - what do you think? Alternatively, we could forget about
bundling or importing the module ourselves, and just leave it to the
user to pass in the dumps/loads function. This would make our code
much cleaner, and fits the "Only one good way to do it" philosophy of
Python. I will go with this as my final proposal...

> - Karol
>
> --
> written by Karol Langner
> Mon Nov 19 15:36:43 CET 2007
>