I’m pleased to share the registration of a new package, JSON3.jl , in the General registry, available immediately. Let’s cut right to the chase and answer the elephant questions in the proverbial discourse room: why do we need another JSON package in Julia? what does it offer distinct from what JSON…

Haha, it’s funny you mention these defaults, because that’s exactly how things are implemented in the package right now; that is, we just treat Base types like custom types and define their JSON3.StructType to be one of the JSON types: JSON3.StringType: https://github.com/quinnj/JSON3.jl/blob/e81…

Nice, in that case the only thing I’d have done differently would be to have it fail more for other types.

Well, like I said, the problem is that we have a generic fallback defined here , which says, “hey, if a type doesn’t define a more specific StructType, then treat it as a basic JSON3.Struct()” which means we get the behavior like you mentioned w/ skipmissing where we just write out the fields by defa…

[image] quinnj: I mentioned I’d be willing to get rid of that definition and have it throw instead, which seems like a nice way to avoid those hard-to-debug scenarios where you forgot to define the StructType for your type. That would definitely make me much better off, it would be interestin…

I agree with your suggestion, I very much prefer throwing errors instead of providing defaults that can backfire in some scenarios. When externalizing objects from a language as complex as Julia, I think one should just let go of the idea that it should “just work” even for complicated cases, and b…

On the other hand, when I try to log an application error, my logs are structured json, and some unexpected type snuck in there (perhaps causing the error, perhaps not), I’d prefer logging succeed with some output awkward to read rather than no useful logs getting collected.

This is really cool. The only aspect I find hard to accept is the subtypekey. Adding an additional type::String field to all my concrete types – a field that will always contain the name of said concrete type – is irritating, for lack of a better word. I think I understand its purpose, but it would …

Having support for multidimensional arrays would be very nice. I see that the relevant test is broken.

Maybe I missed something here, but how does this work with parametric types? Do we need to define a JSON3.StructType for every parameterized combination: using JSON3 struct MyParametricType{T} t::T MyParametricType{T}(t) where {T} = new(t) end MyParametricType(t::T) where {T} = MyParametric…

I haven’t tried this at all but isn’t it enough to just write JSON3.StructType(::Type{<:MyParametricType}) = JSON3.Struct() ?

[ANN] JSON3.jl - Yet another JSON package for Julia

Package Announcements

DataPsycho September 19, 2020, 8:38pm 24

I am having an issue when serializing If someone can help on this regards:

Topic		Replies	Views
Fastest JSON parser to julia Specific Domains ccall , json , cwrap	15	3761	November 6, 2020
JSON Performance Tests Data	7	2342	November 6, 2018
Generating structs from JSON files General Usage json , json3	1	148	March 24, 2026
Initial version of my first package: A JSON Lines reader Package Announcements package	42	3322	November 16, 2020
JSON list of lists to Julia matrix, preferably fast and with low memory overhead Performance	5	2830	January 18, 2021

[ANN] JSON3.jl - Yet another JSON package for Julia

Related topics