Re: [sparql-wrapper-devel] Followup: Support cjson in SparqlWrapper

[Pēteris C. <cu...@gm...>]

Fair enough. My reason for suggesting cjson was performance, cjson is 10 or
more times faster. I'll continue using my locally patched version of
sparql-wrapper -- my app is juggling with big responses from SPARQL endpoint
and performance improvement when using cjson is significant.
Pēteris

2009/9/10 Carlos Tejo <car...@fu...>

> Sveiki Pēteris!
>
> > Today I learned that json module that ships with Python 2.6 is based
> > on simplejson, so SparqlWrapper would benefit from using cjson on 2.6
> > as well. Here's revised _convertJSON function:
>
> Thanks for your emails.
>
> I was reading about JSON modules in Python, at it looks like a
> religion-war. Some people prefers cjson, other people prefers
> simplejson, and evens other prefers other modules.
>
> I have checked the date of the last versions of each module, and cjson
> looks like a frozen project since 2007  [1], and simplejson is still
> alive (at least, the last version is dated in 2009 [2]).
>
> And as json is native since Python 2.6, we think that we could continue
> using simplejson.
>
> If you had any suggestion, please, don't hesitate to contact us by email
> list :-)
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Carlos Tejo
>
> PS. Sorry for the late reply, we were on holidays
>
> [1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-cjson
> [2] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/simplejson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus
> on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> sparql-wrapper-devel mailing list
> spa...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sparql-wrapper-devel
>