On Jul 1, 2009, at 16:42 , Andreas Junghans wrote:
[CUT]
>
> I'm fine with the annotation approach for controlling the details.
> However, the fundamental serialization algorithm should be
> configurable on a more global level. The annotations can then be used
> by the (de)serializer for fine-gra
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
Am 01.07.2009 um 14:33 schrieb Jean-Baptiste BRIAUD -- Novlog:
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 13:28 , Andreas Junghans wrote:
>> [CUT]
>> The serialization behaviour you need is quite different from what's
>> currently done (JavaBean-based vs. attribute-based). I don't think it
>> would b
On Jul 1, 2009, at 13:28 , Andreas Junghans wrote:
[CUT]
The serialization behaviour you need is quite different from what's
currently done (JavaBean-based vs. attribute-based). I don't think it
would be good idea to completely replace the existing approach.
Instead, the algorithm should be conf
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
Am 01.07.2009 um 09:03 schrieb Jean-Baptiste BRIAUD -- Novlog:
>>> BTW, what about the transient Java keyword ? Are transient
>>> attributes
>>> excluded from json serialization ?
>>
>> Just to make it clear, this point no longer concerns the low-level
>> JSON lib (layer b2 ab
Hi Andreas,
Thanks for all your answers !
On Jun 30, 2009, at 12:21 , Andreas Junghans wrote:
> Hi Jean-Baptiste,
>
> Am 30.06.2009 um 09:46 schrieb Jean-Baptiste BRIAUD -- Novlog:
>
>>> Anyway, why are you so keen on replacing the low-level JSON lib on
>>> the
>>> Java side? What's wrong with t
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
Am 30.06.2009 um 09:46 schrieb Jean-Baptiste BRIAUD -- Novlog:
>> Anyway, why are you so keen on replacing the low-level JSON lib on
>> the
>> Java side? What's wrong with the one from json.org? I'd say "never
>> touch a running system" in this case, except there's something
>
On Jun 29, 2009, at 18:13 , Andreas Junghans wrote:
> Hi Jean-Baptiste,
Hi Andreas,
[CUT]
>
> Anyway, why are you so keen on replacing the low-level JSON lib on the
> Java side? What's wrong with the one from json.org? I'd say "never
> touch a running system" in this case, except there's somethi
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
Am 29.06.2009 um 14:11 schrieb Jean-Baptiste BRIAUD -- Novlog:
> About other lib, I was thinking about http://code.google.com/p/google-gson/
> Any feedback ?
Never used it, so I'm not able to comment.
> I didn't read anything about Date restriction in gson.
> I understand that
About other lib, I was thinking about http://code.google.com/p/google-gson/
Any feedback ?
I didn't read anything about Date restriction in gson.
I understand that qooxdoo Date serialization is special but all good
implementation of JSON serializer allow for custom serialization/
deserializatio
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
Am 29.06.2009 um 11:09 schrieb Jean-Baptiste BRIAUD -- Novlog:
> I can see that current JavaRPC is using JSONObject form json.org.
> Few questions :
>
> 1. Apparently, this is delivered from json.org directly with Java
> source text files. What about version ? No CVS/SVN ? No Ja
Hi,
I can see that current JavaRPC is using JSONObject form json.org.
Few questions :
1. Apparently, this is delivered from json.org directly with Java
source text files. What about version ? No CVS/SVN ? No Jar files ?
Should I copy/past again from json.org in order to update this code ?
2.
11 matches
Mail list logo
