abdera-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James M Snell <jasn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jettison for JSON support?
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:41:40 GMT
One new thing that would definitely be cool is a JSON-to-Atom Parser.
Impl the Parser interface, take json as input and output FOM classes.

- James

Elias Torres wrote:
> 
> 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)
> 
> Right.
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> -Elias
> 
>> - Dan
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message