Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

These are all very good reasons. So I make an ADL serializer, so I can always represent my archetype ADL for archive purpose. But the complexity of the parser, that I don't want anymore. Life is short. And there are better things to do. As said, I am building an BMM/AOM environment as a

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

On 16/02/2019 14:00, Bert Verhees wrote: On 16-02-19 13:20, Thomas Beale wrote: Have a look at the Archie project , you'll find very vanilla Java facilities used to do most of this work. Thank you for pointing this out. But I already knew this. My point

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

On 16-02-19 13:20, Thomas Beale wrote: On 16/02/2019 01:38, Bert Verhees wrote: A few last words on this. It is easy for JSON based archetype repository to cooperate with an ADL based repository. Serializing of an AOM structure to ADL is very easy to do, this counts for the DADL and CADL

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

On 16-02-19 13:16, Thomas Beale wrote: Bert, if you serialise a AOM archetype to any object dump format, you need typing information for the simple reason that there is polymorphism in the model, mainly places where the static type is C_OBJECT, C_DEFINED_OBJECT or C_PRIMITIVE_OBJECT but the

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

On 16/02/2019 01:38, Bert Verhees wrote: A few last words on this. It is easy for JSON based archetype repository to cooperate with an ADL based repository. Serializing of an AOM structure to ADL is very easy to do, this counts for the DADL and CADL part. The other way around, to convert

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

Bert, if you serialise a AOM archetype to any object dump format, you need typing information for the simple reason that there is polymorphism in the model, mainly places where the static type is C_OBJECT, C_DEFINED_OBJECT or C_PRIMITIVE_OBJECT but the attached type in a real archetype can

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

Thanks very much for your reply. I did find a link on this which help to study this more. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13502398/json-integers-limit-on-size/39681707#39681707 Of course this is not a problem on archetypes but on datasets it can be. Also worth considering is that there

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

I agree with you, except for how damn limiting pure json* is. Any attempt to introduce long-ints or annotation take you to vertical-specific json+. * json is javascript, so has type and other limitations. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 7:39 PM Bert Verhees A few last words on this. > > It is easy for

RE: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

A few last words on this. It is easy for JSON based archetype repository to cooperate with an ADL based repository. Serializing of an AOM structure to ADL is very easy to do, this counts for the DADL and CADL part. The other way around, to convert the ADL definition part to JSON is harder,

FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

Sent from my Xperia™ by Sony smartphone Original Message Subject: Re: JSON for definitions-notation Sent: 15 Feb 2019 22:46 From: Bert Verhees To: Pieter Bos Cc: Not many people find archetypes readable. I can read them and I have done that many times, but most modelers I know