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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >> >
