'JSON Naming Convention (snake_case, camelCase or PascalCase) [closed]
Is there a standard on JSON naming?
I see most examples using all lower case separated by underscore, aka snake_case, but can it be used PascalCase or camelCase as well?
Solution 1:[1]
In this document Google JSON Style Guide (recommendations for building JSON APIs at Google),
It recommends that:
Property names must be camelCased, ASCII strings.
The first character must be a letter, an underscore (_), or a dollar sign ($).
Example:
{
"thisPropertyIsAnIdentifier": "identifier value"
}
My team consistently follows this convention when building REST APIs. There are some reasons:
- First, the JSON convention should be independent of the programming languages because we want our APIs to be consistent doesn't matter whether there are some APIs implemented using a
camelCaselanguage (e.g. Java), some others usingsnake_caselanguage (e.g. Python). - Also, most of our clients are webapp so
camelCaseis preferred - If the client prefers
snake_case, it still can easily convert data betweensnake_caseandcamelCase(with the help of libraries)
But I agree that if all the applications use the same type of language (e.g. snake_case), the JSON convention should also follow.
Solution 2:[2]
ECMA-404
The JSON syntax does not impose any restrictions on the strings used as names,...
There is no standard naming of keys in JSON and that camelCase or snake_case should work fine.
TL;DR
Here is a rule-of-a-thumb which I think most of the developers use.
| Technology stack | Naming convention | Reason/guide |
|---|---|---|
| Python » JSON » Python | snake_case | Unanimous |
| Python » JSON » PHP | snake_case | Unanimous |
| Python » JSON » Java | snake_case or camelCase | Lean on where the business logic resides. Take advantage of the extrinsic style of Java. |
| Python » JSON » back?end JavaScript | snake_case or camelCase | Lean on where the business logic resides. |
| Python » JSON » front?end JavaScript | snake_case | Screw the front-end anyway |
| Python » JSON » you do not know | snake_case | Screw the parser anyway |
| PHP » JSON » Python | snake_case | Unanimous |
| PHP » JSON » PHP | snake_case | Unanimous |
| PHP » JSON » Java | snake_case or camelCase | Lean on where the business logic resides. Take advantage of the extrinsic style of Java. |
| PHP » JSON » back?end JavaScript | snake_case or camelCase | Lean on where the business logic resides. |
| PHP » JSON » front?end JavaScript | snake_case | Screw the front-end anyway |
| PHP » JSON » you do not know | snake_case | Screw the parser anyway |
| Java » JSON » Python | camelCase or snake_case | Lean on where the business logic resides. Take advantage of the extrinsic style of Java. |
| Java » JSON » PHP | camelCase or snake_case | Lean on where the business logic resides. Take advantage of the extrinsic style of Java. |
| Java » JSON » Java | camelCase | Unanimous |
| Java » JSON » JavaScript | camelCase | Unanimous |
| Java » JSON » you do not know | camelCase | Screw the parser anyway |
| back?end JavaScript » JSON » Python | camelCase or snake_case | Lean on where the business logic resides. |
| front?end JavaScript » JSON » Python | snake_case | Screw the front-end anyway |
| back?end JavaScript » JSON » PHP | camelCase or snake_case | Lean on where the business logic resides. |
| front?end JavaScript » JSON » PHP | snake_case | Screw the front-end anyway |
| JavaScript » JSON » Java | camelCase | Unanimous |
| JavaScript » JSON » JavaScript | camelCase | Original |
| JavaScript » JSON » you do not know | camelCase | Screw the parser anyway |
Driving factors
Imposing a naming convention is very confusing because JSON alone does not impose a standard. However, this can easily be figured out if you break it down into components.
JSON generator
| Programming language | Naming convention |
|---|---|
| Python | snake_case |
| PHP | snake_case |
| Java | camelCase |
| JavaScript | camelCase |
JSON parser
| Programming language | Naming convention |
|---|---|
| Python | snake_case |
| PHP | snake_case |
| Java | camelCase |
| JavaScript | camelCase |
Bulk of business logic
You have to decide which side has the heavier business logic, is it the JSON generator side or the JSON parser side?
Natural belongingness
| Programming language | Natural belongingness |
|---|---|
| Python | intrinsic |
| PHP | intrinsic |
| Java | extrinsic |
| JavaScript | intrinsic |
Intrinsic - Programming language where JSON is accessed naturally similar to accessing native objects and arrays.
Extrinsic - Programming language where JSON is accessed differently than accessing native objects and arrays. Below is an example of Java's com.google.gson package:
/**
* Using a method to access a property instead of using the standard 'dot.syntax'
*/
JsonElement.getAsString("snake_cased_key");
Some actual implementations
- Google Maps JavaScript API - camelCased
- Facebook JavaScript API - snake_cased
- Amazon Web Services - snake_cased & camelCased
- Twitter API - snake_cased
- JSON-LD - camelCased
Conclusions
Choosing the right JSON naming convention for your JSON implementation depends on your technology stack. There are cases where you can use snake_case, camelCase, or any other naming convention.
Another thing to consider is the weight to be put on the JSON-generator vs the JSON-parser and/or the front-end JavaScript. In general, more weight should be put on business logic side.
Also, if the JSON-parser side is unknown then you can declare what ever can work for you.
Solution 3:[3]
Notably for me on NodeJS, if I'm working with databases and my field names are underscore separated, I also use them in the struct keys.
This is because db fields have a lot of acronyms/abbreviations so something like appSNSInterfaceRRTest looks a bit messy but app_sns_interface_rr_test is nicer.
In Javascript variables are all camelCase and class names (constructors) are ProperCase, so you'd see something like
var devTask = {
task_id: 120,
store_id: 2118,
task_name: 'generalLedger'
};
or
generalLedgerTask = new GeneralLedgerTask( devTask );
And of course in JSON keys/strings are wrapped in double quotes, but then you just use the JSON.stringify and pass in JS objects, so don't need to worry about that.
I struggled with this a bit until I found this happy medium between JSON and JS naming conventions.
Solution 4:[4]
Seems that there's enough variation that people go out of their way to allow conversion from all conventions to others: http://www.cowtowncoder.com/blog/archives/cat_json.html
Notably, the mentioned Jackson JSON parser prefers bean_naming.
Solution 5:[5]
I think that there isn't a official naming convention to JSON, but you can follow some industry leaders to see how it is working.
Google, which is one of the biggest IT company of the world, has a JSON style guide: https://google.github.io/styleguide/jsoncstyleguide.xml
Taking advantage, you can find other styles guide, which Google defines, here: https://github.com/google/styleguide
Solution 6:[6]
As others have stated there is no standard so you should choose one yourself. Here are a couple of things to consider when doing so:
If you are using JavaScript to consume JSON then using the same naming convention for properties in both will provide visual consistency and possibly some opportunities for cleaner code re-use.
A small reason to avoid kebab-case is that the hyphens may clash visually with
-characters that appear in values.{ "bank-balance": -10 }
Sources
This article follows the attribution requirements of Stack Overflow and is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Source: Stack Overflow
| Solution | Source |
|---|---|
| Solution 1 | |
| Solution 2 | |
| Solution 3 | Clarence Liu |
| Solution 4 | entropo |
| Solution 5 | Filipe Brito |
| Solution 6 |
