Skip to content

[RFC] Remove support for Tuple and Variant #104

@Leonidas-from-XIV

Description

@Leonidas-from-XIV

Current state

Yojson currently supports proprietary extensions to JSON, namely using (x, y) syntax to represent tuples and <Bar:"abc"> for variants.

Proposal & Rationale

JSON is mainly a language-neutral format for information exchange, not much for serialization of data and as such it makes sense to support a language-interoperable set of JSON grammar. As such, outputting data using these features will yield problems with other parsers that do not understand that grammar extension.

As such the suggestion is to remove these variants from the Yojson.{Basic,Safe,Raw}.t type, remove the pretty printing support and remove the parsing code.

Removing the code makes the maintenance easier, is simpler for people to understand (people knowing JSON might be confused why `Tuple or `Variant can be produced) and makes it easier to work on the parser since it can match the grammar of RFC 8259 without fitting in proprietary data types.

Impact

While this is a breaking change, we estimate the impact to be low, since presumably most JSON parsed with Yojson comes from non-OCaml sources that do not use these non-standard extensions.

The most obvious places that might break in the OCamlverse might be the schema generation tools:

  • ppx_deriving_yojson does not use `Tuple nor `Variant, it encodes both tuples and variants as `Lists
  • ppx_yojson_conv does not seem to use `Tuple nor `Variant
  • atd seems to encode things using `Variant (source), but it might be possible to switch to an encoding that's more like what the deriving-plugins do? Is there someone who we could talk on atd's behalf? @rgrinberg maybe?

Roadmap

This would be planned for a 3.0.0 release at the earliest, to give people enough time to discuss the impact and update their code. We could possibly try a rebuild of the revdeps in the duniverse to see how many projects are affected.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    rfcRequest for Comments on future direction

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions