arrayencode

[Richard Gaskin]

Bob Sneidar wrote:

 > Richard I think I hear you say that JSON is an alternative to
 > arrayEncode?

I'm apparently writing so badly maybe I should skip the shorthand "LSON" 
and just write the full form: "output from LC's built-in arrayEncode".

I'd adopted "LSON" to help position its role as the LC-native way to 
transport and store array data, similar to the role of JSON in 
JavaScript workflows or BSON within MongoDB systems.


When you need interoperability, there's no longer much of a choice: JSON 
is the de facto standard. Though highly specific to how JavaScript 
works, browsers are so ubiquitous that most languages other than 
JavaScript now have some means of transforming JSON into a format that 
can be used internally, as LC does with its JSONtoArray and ArrayToJSON 
functions.


But when all producers and consumers of data in a system use the LC 
engine, LSON (output from LC's built-in arrayEncode) is the 
with-the-grain choice.


 > What about storing to SQL blob and binary files? Will it suffice? I'd
 > consider converting all my arrayEncoding to JSON if so.

LSON (output from LC's built-in arrayEncode) is a binary format, so any 
storage or transport mechanism suitable for binary data can be used.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems