I am learning JSON, but I found out that you can put what are called "hashes" into JSON as well? Where can I find out what a hash is? Or could you explain to me what a hash is? Also, what's a hashmap? I have experience in C++ and C#, and I am learning JS, Jquery, and JSON.
A Hash is a sparse array that uses arbitrary strings/objects (depending on the implementation, this varies across programming languages) rather than plain integers as keys.
In Javascript, any Object is technically a hash (also referred to as a Dictionary, Associative-Array, etc).
Examples:
var myObj = {}; // Same as = new Object();
myObj['foo'] = 'bar';
var myArr = []; // Same as = new Array();
myArr[0] = 'foo';
myArr[1] = 'bar';
myArr['blah'] = 'baz'; // This will work, but is not recommended.
Now, since JSON is basically using JS constructs and some strict guidelines to define portable data, the equivalent to myObj above would be:
{ "foo" : "bar" };
Hope this helps.
Hash = dictionary.
A hash:
{ "key1": "value1", "key2": "value2" }
JSON supports dictionary type elements. People may refer to these as hash tables, which are a type of data structure.
Referring to JSON dictionaries as hash tables would be technically incorrect, however, as there is no particular data structure implementation associated with the JSON data itself.
A hash is a random looking number which is generated from a piece of data and always the same for the same input. For example if you download files from some websites they will provide a hash of the data so you can verify your download is not corrupted (which would change the hash).
Another application of hashes is in a hash table (or hash map). This is a very fast associative data structure where the hashes are used to index into an array. std::unorderd_map in C++ is an example of this.
You could store a hash in JSON as a string for example something like "AB34F553" and use this to verify data.
On json.org, a JSON "object" is "a collection of name/value pairs. In various languages, this is realized as an object, record, struct, dictionary, hash table, keyed list, or associative array."
Using the ambiguous term "hash" for a JSON object is confusing. "Hash" is indeed used in the wild as short-hand for: hash map, dictionary, key-value structure, etc. But it is also short-hand for: the hash value that is computed by a hash function.
Related
I'm using webwrite to post to an api. One of the field names in the json object I'm trying to setup for posting is odata.metadata. I'm making a struct that looks like this for the json object:
json = struct('odata.metadata', metadata, 'odata.type', type, 'Name', name,);
But I get an error
Error using struct
Invalid field name "odata.metadata"
Here's the json object I'm trying to use in Matlab. All strings for simplicity:
{
"odata.metadata": "https://website.com#Element",
"odata.type": "Blah.Blah.This.That",
"Name": "My Object"
}
Is there a way to submit this json object or is it a lost cause?
Field names are not allowed to have dots in them. The reason why is because this will be confused with accessing another nested structure within the structure itself.
For example, doing json.odata.metadata would be interpreted as json being a struct with a member whose field name is odata where odata has another member whose field name is metadata. This would not be interpreted as a member with the combined field name as odata.metadata. You're going to have to rename the field to something else or change the convention of your field name slightly.
Usually, the convention is to replace dots with underscores. An automated way to take care of this if you're not willing to manually rename the field names yourself is to use a function called matlab.lang.makeValidName that takes in a string and converts it into a valid field name. This function was introduced in R2014a. For older versions, it's called genvarname.
For example:
>> matlab.lang.makeValidName('odata.metadata')
ans =
odata_metadata
As such, either replace all dots with _ to ensure no ambiguities or use matlab.lang.makeValidName or genvarname to take care of this for you.
I would suggest using a a containers.Map instead of a struct to store your data, and then creating your JSON string by iterating over the Map filednames and appending them along with the data to your JSON.
Here's a quick demonstration of what I mean:
%// Prepare the Map and the Data:
metadata = 'https://website.com#Element';
type = 'Blah.Blah.This.That';
name = 'My Object';
example_map = containers.Map({'odata.metadata','odata.type','Name'},...
{metadata,type,name});
%// Convert to JSON:
JSONstr = '{'; %// Initialization
map_keys = keys(example_map);
map_vals = values(example_map);
for ind1 = 1:example_map.Count
JSONstr = [JSONstr '"' map_keys{ind1} '":"' map_vals{ind1} '",'];
end
JSONstr =[JSONstr(1:end-1) '}']; %// Finalization (get rid of the last ',' and close)
Which results in a valid JSON string.
Obviously if your values aren't strings you'll need to convert them using num2str etc.
Another alternative you might want to consider is the JSONlab FEX submission. I saw that its savejson.m is able to accept cell arrays - which can hold any string you like.
Other alternatives may include any of the numerous Java or python JSON libraries which you can call from MATLAB.
I probably shouldn't add this as an answer - but you can have '.' in a struct fieldname...
Before I go further - I do not advocate this and it will almost certainly cause bugs and a lot of trouble down the road... #rayryeng method is a better approach
If your struct is created by a mex function which creates a field that contains a "." -> then you will get what your after.
To create your own test see the Mathworks example and modify accordingly.
(I wont put the full code here to discourage the practice).
If you update the char example and compile to test_mex you get:
>> obj = test_mex
obj =
Doublestuff: [1x100 double]
odata.metadata: 'This is my char'
Note: You can only access your custom field in Matlab using dynamic fieldnames:
obj.('odata.metadata')
You need to use a mex capability to update it...
JSON could mean JSON type or json string.
It starts confuse me when different library use json in two different meanings.
I wonder how other people name those variables differently.
For all practical purposes, "JSON" has exactly one meaning, which is a string representing a JavaScript object following certain specific syntax.
JSON is parsed into a JavaScript object using JSON.parse, and an JavaScript object is converted into a JSON string using JSON.stringify.
The problem is that all too many people have gotten into the bad habit of referring to plain old JavaScript objects as JSON. That is either confused or sloppy or both. {a: 1} is a JS object. '{"a": 1}' is a JSON string.
In the same vein, many people use variable names like json to refer to JavaScript objects derived from JSON. For example:
$.getJSON('foo.php') . then(function(json) { ...
In the above case, the variable name json is ill-advised. The actual payload returned from the server is a JSON string, but internally $.getJSON has already transformed that into a plain old JavaScript object, which is what is being passed to the then handler. Therefore, it would be preferable to use the variable name data, for example.
If a library uses the term "json" to refer to things which are not JSON, but actually are JavaScript objects, it is a mark of poor design, and I'd suggest looking around for a different library.
This question already has an answer here:
Flex dictionary literal
(1 answer)
Closed 8 years ago.
Background
Defining an Array is typically demonstrated as var array:Array = new Array(), however, this relegates array assignment to methods like array.push(value) or linear declarations like ...
array[0] = "apple"
array[1] = "orange"
Obviously, a more succinct format is an implicit declaration, where a double bracket is understood to define an array, and the index is automatically handled.
var array:Array = ["apple", "orange"];
The same works for Objects...
var obj:Object = {
"apple":"fritter",
"orange":"pie"
}
The Problem
The problem arises when trying to define a Dictionary's key:value pairs implicitly. Reading the documentation, I was shocked to only find one method on the class. The fact that it extends Object at least means for ... in are available, but that's about where the conveniences end.
Especially since we'll want to use weak keys, the one argument available to Dictionaries would need to be set to true, thereby precluding any kind of implicit definition. The same documentation outlines typical usage in the former (lengthier) format I demonstrated with arrays:
var dict:Dictionary = new Dictionary(true);
dict[key] = "Letters";
That's just not going to fly for complicated structures.
[ redacted with argument ]
Because the docs for both Array & Object never actually explain implicit declarations, I can't help but imagine there might be a way to do so with Dictionaries. Anyone know?
I'm thinking now my only option is to come up with some kind of method which maps a complex object tree to a dictionary... which is dumb, since it'd be faster to just use the long method first demonstrated.
First of all, even if you write the code with Object and don't quote up strings as in original question, you'll not receive the expected results. And if you are attempting to use an object as a key in with statement, the compiler will be confused whether you want dict[obj] or just obj to be assigned a value. So, if you are adding a property to an Object or Dictionary, use the brackets syntax:
obj["apple"]="fritter";
dict[obj]="bar";
Etc.
I have a data which are object array. It contains object arrays in a tree structure. I use JSON.stringify(myArray) but the data still contain array because I see [] inside the converted data.
In my case, I want all the data to be converted into json object not array regarding I need to used the data on TreeTable of SAPUI5.
Maybe I misunderstand. Please help me clear.
This is the example of the data that I got from JSON.stringify.
[{"value":{"Id":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907717A3",
"Text":"BI-RA Reporting, analysis, and dashboards",
"Parent":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A79076F7A3","Type":"BMF"},
"children":[{"value":{"Id":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907737A3",
"Text":"WebIntelligence_4.1","Parent":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907717A3",
"Type":"TWB"},"children":[{"value":{"Id":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907757A3",
"Text":"Functional Areas","Parent":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907737A3","Type":"TWB"},
"children":[{"value":{"Id":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907777A3",
"Text":"CHARTING","Parent":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907757A3","Type":"TWB"},
"children":[{"value":{"Id":"001999E0B9081EE28AB706BE26631E93",
"Text":"Drill","Parent":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907777A3","Type":"TWB"},
"children":[{"value":{"Id":"001999E0B9081EE28AB706BE26633E93",
"Text":"[AUTO][ACCEPT] Drill on charts DHTML","Parent":"001999E0B9081EE28AB706BE26631E93",
"Type":"TWB","Ref":"UT_WEBI_CHARTS_DRILL_HTML"}},{"value":{"Id":"001999E0B9081EE28AB706BE26635E93",
"Text":"[AUTO][ACCEPT] Drill on charts JAVA","Parent":"001999E0B9081EE28AB706BE26631E93",
"Type":"TWB","Ref":"UT_WEBI_CHARTS_DRILL_JAVA"}}]},...
The output that I want shouldn't be array of object but should be something like...
{{"value":{
"Id":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907717A3",
"Text":"BI-RA Reporting, analysis, and dashboards",
"Parent":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A79076F7A3","Type":"BMF"},
"children":{
{"value":{
"Id":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907737A3",
"Text":"WebIntelligence_4.1",
"Parent":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907717A3",
"Type":"TWB"},
"children":{
{"value":{
"Id":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907757A3",
"Text":"Functional Areas",
"Parent":"00145E5BB2641EE284F811A7907737A3",
"Type":"TWB"},...
JSON.stringify merely converts JavaScript data structures to a JSON-formatted string for consumption by other parsers (including JSON.parse). If you want it to stringify to a different value, you must change the source data structures first.
However, it seems that this can't be represented as anything other than an array because you have duplicate keys (i.e. value appears more than once). That would not be valid for a JavaScript object or a JSON representation of such.
I think what you want is
JSON.stringify(data[0]);
or perhaps
JSON.stringify(data[0].value);
where data is the object you passed in the question
Part of a website's JSON response had this (... added for context):
{..., now:function(){return(new Date).getTime()}, ...}
Is adding anonymous functions to JSON valid? I would expect each time you access 'time' to return a different value.
No.
JSON is purely meant to be a data description language. As noted on http://www.json.org, it is a "lightweight data-interchange format." - not a programming language.
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON, the "basic types" supported are:
Number (integer, real, or floating
point)
String (double-quoted Unicode
with backslash escaping)
Boolean
(true and false)
Array (an ordered
sequence of values, comma-separated
and enclosed in square brackets)
Object (collection of key:value
pairs, comma-separated and enclosed
in curly braces)
null
The problem is that JSON as a data definition language evolved out of JSON as a JavaScript Object Notation. Since Javascript supports eval on JSON, it is legitimate to put JSON code inside JSON (in that use-case). If you're using JSON to pass data remotely, then I would say it is bad practice to put methods in the JSON because you may not have modeled your client-server interaction well. And, further, when wishing to use JSON as a data description language I would say you could get yourself into trouble by embedding methods because some JSON parsers were written with only data description in mind and may not support method definitions in the structure.
Wikipedia JSON entry makes a good case for not including methods in JSON, citing security concerns:
Unless you absolutely trust the source of the text, and you have a need to parse and accept text that is not strictly JSON compliant, you should avoid eval() and use JSON.parse() or another JSON specific parser instead. A JSON parser will recognize only JSON text and will reject other text, which could contain malevolent JavaScript. In browsers that provide native JSON support, JSON parsers are also much faster than eval. It is expected that native JSON support will be included in the next ECMAScript standard.
Let's quote one of the spec's - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7159#section-12
The The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format Specification states:
JSON is a subset of JavaScript but excludes assignment and invocation.
Since JSON's syntax is borrowed from JavaScript, it is possible to
use that language's "eval()" function to parse JSON texts. This
generally constitutes an unacceptable security risk, since the text
could contain executable code along with data declarations. The same
consideration applies to the use of eval()-like functions in any
other programming language in which JSON texts conform to that
language's syntax.
So all answers which state, that functions are not part of the JSON standard are correct.
The official answer is: No, it is not valid to define functions in JSON results!
The answer could be yes, because "code is data" and "data is code".
Even if JSON is used as a language independent data serialization format, a tunneling of "code" through other types will work.
A JSON string might be used to pass a JS function to the client-side browser for execution.
[{"data":[["1","2"],["3","4"]],"aFunction":"function(){return \"foo bar\";}"}]
This leads to question's like: How to "https://stackoverflow.com/questions/939326/execute-javascript-code-stored-as-a-string".
Be prepared, to raise your "eval() is evil" flag and stick your "do not tunnel functions through JSON" flag next to it.
It is not standard as far as I know. A quick look at http://json.org/ confirms this.
Nope, definitely not.
If you use a decent JSON serializer, it won't let you serialize a function like that. It's a valid OBJECT, but not valid JSON. Whatever that website's intent, it's not sending valid JSON.
JSON explicitly excludes functions because it isn't meant to be a JavaScript-only data
structure (despite the JS in the name).
A short answer is NO...
JSON is a text format that is completely language independent but uses
conventions that are familiar to programmers of the C-family of
languages, including C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, Perl, Python, and
many others. These properties make JSON an ideal data-interchange
language.
Look at the reason why:
When exchanging data between a browser and a server, the data can only
be text.
JSON is text, and we can convert any JavaScript object into JSON, and
send JSON to the server.
We can also convert any JSON received from the server into JavaScript
objects.
This way we can work with the data as JavaScript objects, with no
complicated parsing and translations.
But wait...
There is still ways to store your function, it's widely not recommended to that, but still possible:
We said, you can save a string... how about converting your function to a string then?
const data = {func: '()=>"a FUNC"'};
Then you can stringify data using JSON.stringify(data) and then using JSON.parse to parse it (if this step needed)...
And eval to execute a string function (before doing that, just let you know using eval widely not recommended):
eval(data.func)(); //return "a FUNC"
Via using NodeJS (commonJS syntax) I was able to get this type of functionality working, I originally had just a JSON structure inside some external JS file, but I wanted that structure to be more of a Class, with methods that could be decided at run time.
The declaration of 'Executor' in myJSON is not required.
var myJSON = {
"Hello": "World",
"Executor": ""
}
module.exports = {
init: () => { return { ...myJSON, "Executor": (first, last) => { return first + last } } }
}
Function expressions in the JSON are completely possible, just do not forget to wrap it in double quotes. Here is an example taken from noSQL database design:
{
"_id": "_design/testdb",
"views": {
"byName": {
"map": "function(doc){if(doc.name){emit(doc.name,doc.code)}}"
}
}
}
although eval is not recommended, this works:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>
<h2>Convert a string written in JSON format, into a JavaScript function.</h2>
<p id="demo"></p>
<script>
function test(val){return val + " it's OK;}
var someVar = "yup";
var myObj = { "func": "test(someVar);" };
document.getElementById("demo").innerHTML = eval(myObj.func);
</script>
</body>
</html>
Leave the quotes off...
var a = {"b":function(){alert('hello world');} };
a.b();