i have an simple array:
array
0 => string 'Kum' (length=3)
1 => string 'Kumpel' (length=6)
when I encode the array using json_encode(), i get following:
["Kum","Kumpel"]
My question is, what is the reason to get ["Kum","Kumpel"] instead of { "0" : "Kum", "1" : "Kumpel" }?
"{}" brackets specify an object and "[]" are used for arrays according to JSON specification. Arrays don't have enumeration, if you look at it from memory allocation perspective. It's just data followed by more data, objects from other hand have properties with names and the data is assigned to the properties, therefore to encode such object you must also pass the correct property names. But for array you don't need to specify the indexes, because they always will be 0..n, where n is the length of the array - 1, the only thing that matters is the order of data.
$array = array("a","b","c");
json_encode($array); // ["a","b","c"]
json_encode($array, JSON_FORCE_OBJECT); // {"0":"a", "1":"b","2":"c"}
The reason why JSON_FORCE_OBJECT foces it to use "0,1,2" is because to assign data to obeject you must assign it to a property, since no property names are given by developer (only the data) the encoder uses array indexes as property names, because those are the only names which would make sense.
Note: according to PHP manual the options parameters are only available from PHP 5.3.
For older PHP versions refer to chelmertz's answer for a way to make json_encode to use indexes.
As Gumbo said, on the JS-side it won't matter. To force PHP into it, try this:
$a = new stdClass();
$a->{0} = "Kum";
$a->{1} = "Kumpel";
echo json_encode($a);
Not that usable, I'd stick with the array notation.
Just cast as an object and it will work fine...the JSON_FORCE_OBJECT parameter does exactly the same thing.
json_encode((object)$array);
Don't forget to convert it back into a php array so you can access its values in php:
$array = (object)$array;
$array = (array)$array;
json_encode($array);
Since you’re having a PHP array with just numeric keys, there is no need to use a JavaScript object. But if you need one, try Maiku Mori’s suggestion.
I personally think this is a bug that needs to be fixed in PHP. JSON_FORCE_OBJECT is absolutely not an answer. If you try to do any sort of generic programming you get tripped up constantly. For example, the following is valid PHP:
array("0" => array(0,1,2,3), "1" => array(4,5,6,7));
And should be converted to
{"0": [0,1,2,3], "1": [4,5,6,7]}
Yet PHP expects me to either accept
[[0,1,2,3],[4,5,6,7]]
or
{"0":{"0":1,"1":1,"2":2,"3":3},"1":{"0":4,"1":5,"2":6,"3":7}}
Neither of which are right at all. How can I possibly decode an object like that? What possible reason is there to ever change something that is clearly using strings as indexes? It's like PHP was trying to be clever to help out idiotic people who can't differentiate strings from ints, but in the process messed up anyone legitimately using strings as indexes, regardless of what the value COULD be turned into.
Related
To create an empty JSON object I do usually use:
json_encode((object) null);
casting null to an object works, but is there any other preferable way and/or any problem with this solution?
Recommended method
json_decode ("{}") will return a stdClass per default, using the below should therefor be considered safe/portable and correct.
json_encode (new stdClass);
Your solution could work..
The documentation specifies that (object) null will result in an empty object, some might therefor say that your code is valid and that it's the method to use.
PHP: Objects - Manual
If a value of any other type is converted to an object, a new instance of the stdClass built-in class is created. If the value was NULL, the new instance will be empty.
.. but, try to keep it safe!
Though you never know when/if the above will change, so if you'd like to be 100% certain that you will always will end up with a {} in your encoded data you could use a hack such as:
$empty = json_decode ("{}");
$result = json_encode($empty); // "{}"
Even though it's tedious and ugly I do assume/hope that json_encode/json_decode is compatible with one another and always will evaluate the following to true:
$a = <something>;
$a === json_decode (json_encode ($a));
If you use objects as dynamic dictionaries (and I guess you do), then I think you want to use an ArrayObject.
It maps into JSON dictionary even when it's empty. It is great if you need to distinguish between lists (arrays) and dictionaries (associative arrays):
$complex = array('list' => array(), 'dict' => new ArrayObject());
print json_encode($complex); // -> {"list":[],"dict":{}}
You can also manipulate it seamlessly (as you would do with an associative array), and it will keep rendering properly into a dictionary:
$complex['dict']['a'] = 123;
print json_encode($complex); // -> {"list":[],"dict":{"a":123}}
unset($complex['dict']['a']);
print json_encode($complex); // -> {"list":[],"dict":{}}
If you need this to be 100% compatible both ways, you can also wrap json_decode so that it returns ArrayObjects instead of stdClass objects (you'll need to walk the result tree and recursively replace all the objects, which is a fairly easy task).
Gotchas. Only one I've found so far: is_array(new ArrayObject()) evaluates to false. You need to find and replace is_array occurrences with is_iterable.
Well, json_encode() simply returns a string from a PHP array/object/etc. You can achieve the same effect much more efficiently by doing:
$json = '{}';
There's really no point in using a function to accomplish this.
UPDATE
As per your comment updates, you could try:
$test = json_encode(array('some_properties'=>new stdClass));
Though I'm not sure that's any better than what you've been doing.
json_encode($array, JSON_FORCE_OBJECT) will do it too. see https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.json-encode.php
I was trying to get some values from MySQL database and when converting into JSON array using json_encode() I got a JSON object , after a while I found out that the indices was the root cause of the problem
here's the example I mentioned
<?php
$array = array(0=>"zero",2=>"two");
$another_array=array(0=>"zero",1=>"one");
print_r(json_encode($array)); // output: {"0":"zero","2":"two"}
print_r(json_encode($another_array)); //output: ["zero","one"]
?>
so what's the reason for that ?
Because array(0=>"zero",1=>"one") is the same as array("zero", "one") and the JSON encoder assumes the latter is a list (since that's how PHP does lists) and has no way to tell the former from the latter.
If you want to force json_encode to treat all arrays as objects, pass JSON_FORCE_OBJECT as the second argument:
json_encode(array(0=>"zero",1=>"one"), JSON_FORCE_OBJECT)
// {"0":"zero","1":"one"}
If you always want a json list instead, get rid of the keys (e.g. using array_values()) before encoding.
When using json_encode, it annoyingly automatically coverts the int keys to strings. For example, if you have an array:
$a = array();
$a[12] = 15;
echo json_encode($a);
{"12":15} //notice the quotes around 12
After searching SO, the solution is to use
json_encode($array,JSON_NUMERIC_CHECK)
However, that is only available in php > 5.3.3. The production server I'm stuck with is using 5.3.2.
Surely there is a work around?
So the problem here is that you are basically mixing your approach to the data structure and json_encode() is trying to make a best guess as to how to interpret your array, since in JSON, there is not such concept of a non-zero based, numerically indexed array.
If for example, you had a zero-based numeric array with a continuous number sequence, json_encode() would encode this a a numerically-indexed array of the format:
[value1, value2, ...]
Since you don't have a zero-based array, your data structure is being interpreted as an object structure and given a string key (the only available key type for an object in JSON) of the format:
{"key", value}
So it seems you need to make up your mind as to what you are really trying to represent in your array. Do you only need a numerically based array, or do you need object encoding.
To create an empty JSON object I do usually use:
json_encode((object) null);
casting null to an object works, but is there any other preferable way and/or any problem with this solution?
Recommended method
json_decode ("{}") will return a stdClass per default, using the below should therefor be considered safe/portable and correct.
json_encode (new stdClass);
Your solution could work..
The documentation specifies that (object) null will result in an empty object, some might therefor say that your code is valid and that it's the method to use.
PHP: Objects - Manual
If a value of any other type is converted to an object, a new instance of the stdClass built-in class is created. If the value was NULL, the new instance will be empty.
.. but, try to keep it safe!
Though you never know when/if the above will change, so if you'd like to be 100% certain that you will always will end up with a {} in your encoded data you could use a hack such as:
$empty = json_decode ("{}");
$result = json_encode($empty); // "{}"
Even though it's tedious and ugly I do assume/hope that json_encode/json_decode is compatible with one another and always will evaluate the following to true:
$a = <something>;
$a === json_decode (json_encode ($a));
If you use objects as dynamic dictionaries (and I guess you do), then I think you want to use an ArrayObject.
It maps into JSON dictionary even when it's empty. It is great if you need to distinguish between lists (arrays) and dictionaries (associative arrays):
$complex = array('list' => array(), 'dict' => new ArrayObject());
print json_encode($complex); // -> {"list":[],"dict":{}}
You can also manipulate it seamlessly (as you would do with an associative array), and it will keep rendering properly into a dictionary:
$complex['dict']['a'] = 123;
print json_encode($complex); // -> {"list":[],"dict":{"a":123}}
unset($complex['dict']['a']);
print json_encode($complex); // -> {"list":[],"dict":{}}
If you need this to be 100% compatible both ways, you can also wrap json_decode so that it returns ArrayObjects instead of stdClass objects (you'll need to walk the result tree and recursively replace all the objects, which is a fairly easy task).
Gotchas. Only one I've found so far: is_array(new ArrayObject()) evaluates to false. You need to find and replace is_array occurrences with is_iterable.
Well, json_encode() simply returns a string from a PHP array/object/etc. You can achieve the same effect much more efficiently by doing:
$json = '{}';
There's really no point in using a function to accomplish this.
UPDATE
As per your comment updates, you could try:
$test = json_encode(array('some_properties'=>new stdClass));
Though I'm not sure that's any better than what you've been doing.
json_encode($array, JSON_FORCE_OBJECT) will do it too. see https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.json-encode.php
You can pass a boolean to json_decode to return an array instead of an object
json_decode('{"foo", "bar", "baz"}', true); // array(0 => 'foo', 1 => 'bar', 2 => 'baz')
My question is this. When parsing object literals, does this guarantee that the ordering of the items will be preserved? I know JSON object properties aren't ordered, but PHP arrays are. I can't find anywhere in the PHP manual where this is addressed explicitly. It probably pays to err on the side of caution, but I would like to avoid including some kind of "index" sub-property if possible.
Wouldn't it make more sense in this case to use an array when you pass the JSON to PHP. If you don't have any object keys in the JSON (which become associative array keys in PHP), just send it as an array. That way you will be guaranteed they will be in the same order in PHP as in javascript.
json_decode('{["foo", "bar", "baz"]}');
json_decode('["foo", "bar", "baz"]'); //I think this would work
If you need associative arrays (which is why you are passing the second argument as true), you will have to come up with some way to maintain their order when passing. You will pry have to do some post-processing on the resulting array after you decode it to format it how you want it.
$json = '{[ {"key" : "val"}, {"key" : "val"} ]}';
json_decode($json, true);
Personally, I've never trusted any system to return an exact order unless that order is specifically defined. If you really need an order, then use a dictionary aka 2dimension array and assigned a place value (0,1,2,3...) to each value in the list.
If you apply this rule to everything, you'll never have to worry about the delivery/storage of that array, be it XML, JSON or a database.
Remember, just because something happens to work a certain way, doesn't mean it does so intentionally. It's akin to thinking rows in a database have an order, when in fact they don't unless you use an ORDER BY clause. It's unsafe to think ID 1 always comes before ID 2 in a SELECT.
I've used json_decode() some times, and the results order was kept intact with PHP client apps. But with Python for instance it does not preserve the order.
One way to be reassured is to test it over with multiple examples.
Lacking an explicit statement I'd say, by definition, no explicit order will be preserved.
My primary line of thought it what order, exactly, would this be preserving? The json_decode function takes a string representation of a javascript object literal as it's argument, and then returns either an object or an array. The function's input (object literal as string) has no explicit ordering, which means there's no clear order for the json_decode function to maintain.