> Am 26.05.2015 um 22:13 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>: > > >> On 26 May 2015, at 21:54, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote: >> >>> >>> Am 26.05.2015 um 21:42 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>: >>> >>> >>>> On 26 May 2015, at 19:24, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It could be dead simple as specifying the class if the different JSON >>>> libraries shared a common to/from API selectors, but they don't. >>> >>> Yes, it would be very good if there was such a thing as a common API for >>> any reader/writer of any format (JSON, CSV, XML, STON, FUEL, ...). >>> >>> For a reader that is pretty easy, I think. Any reader object should >>> understand >>> >>> #readFrom: <stream> (binary or character ReadStream as appropriate) >>> >>> And maybe also >>> >>> #readFromString: <string> >>> #readFromBytes: <bytearray> >>> >>> For the writer, I am not so sure. Maybe >>> >>> #nextPut: <object> toStream: <stream> (binary or character ReadStream as >>> appropriate) >>> >>> And maybe also >>> >>> #toString: <object> >>> #toBytes: <object> >>> >>> Note that the reader and writer objects could be different. >>> >>> But like I said, I am not so sure about the API. We could try to define a >>> Trait for this. >>> >> I'd like to have #readFrom:as: . Some of the mappers instantiate common >> classes that should be overwritable. Of course this does not apply for e.g. >> fuel. >> >> Norbert > > Hmm, that would become quickly much more complex than I intended it to be. > More complex configuration should be done up front when you configure the > reader or writer object, I think. > > The idea is to find a usage common API. > Agreed somehow :)
Norbert
