polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Stax XML serialization format...
Date Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:57:16 GMT
Gang,
The StaxValueSerialization format is very verbose, and possibly only
suitable with an XML browser (i.e. a regular browser with a CSS to make it
into tables)

>From testcase;
<?xml version="1.1"
encoding="utf-8"?><object><field><name>number</name><value>42</value></field><field><name>nullString</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>emptyString</name><value></value></field><field><name>stringList</name><value><array></array></value></field><field><name>anotherNull</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>anotherListNull</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>anotherListEmpty</name><value><array></array></value></field><field><name>testEnum</name><value>somevalue</value></field><field><name>foo</name><value><object><field><name>_type</name><value>org.qi4j.test.value.AbstractValueCompositeSerializationTest$FooValue</value></field><field><name>bar</name><value></value></field></object></value>

<snip/>

I doubt anybody is using it, and my question is whether it should be kept
at all, or I should do the same as I did with JSON Maps format, where the
current format is default, and that a Options flag indicates a leaner
format, where the tag name is the property name and the element value is
the value.

WDYAT?

Cheers
-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message