abdera-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>
Subject Re: Jettison for JSON support?
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:12:42 GMT

Dan Diephouse wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us> wrote:
>> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>> > Hi Elias,
>> >
>> > Please, I think I am the naive one around here as I'm just getting my
>> feet
>> > wet with Atom and Abdera. :-)
>> >
>> > Agreed that JSON and XML are not so easily mapped to each other. The
>> > xml:base/id/lang stuff slipped my mind as a potential issue. It seems
>> that
>> > all the xml:base handling is in the FOM* classes right? So the JSON
>> support
>> > always outputs the full IRIs?
>> That's my intent at least although the code hasn't been thoroughly
>> tested. I think we are calling getHref() instead of getResolvedHref().
>> But anyways, that's the kinds of things we can do in a custom writer as
>> opposed to one that reads it from XML. However, it's still unresolved
>> how to map 80% of the most commonly used Atom elements into JSON without
>> making it too complicated (e.g. doing string checks for '@' or
>> maintaining $-namespaces) for the end-user.
> Personally I hate the $ namespaces. Jettison does require an @ for
> attributes, so that is another limitation of it. (I could allow users to
> override this, which might be a nice feature, but I don't know that it
> makes
> any difference for this case)


>> > And yes, it would not be that hard for a user to use Jettison with the
>> > current APIs. I was just wondering if it made sense to use it
>> instead of
>> a
>> > custom mapping. If no, thats OK, thats just one of the things I'm
>> trying
>> to
>> > figure out.
>> I guess we could have "multiple" JSONWriters, but I'm not sure we are
>> needing that just yet. I think that as we get more users, we'll be able
>> to work out a good representation and stick with it. Maybe it's one of
>> the automagic ones, maybe it's a custom one.
> I wonder if there will ever be a standard Atom-JSON mapping... I'm starting
> to see how a custom one makes sense in this case, so I'd probably say stick
> with custom and people can use Jettison if they need it. Putting
> Jettison in
> by default sounds like a square peg for a round hole.

I think there will be an Atom-JSON mapping, but it's not until APP
really starts getting some use out there. Hopefully, we'll be ready to
help with that.

Thanks for you interest in Abdera and we are pleased to have you using
it and finding ways to make it better.


> - Dan

View raw message