What about moving the JMSSerializer to the core? It would make the Serializer component a better component.
William On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Hugo Hamon <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Lukas, > > Well my opinion is that I would keep the Serializer as a standalone > component and provide a simple "serializer" service in FrameworkBundle. > But I would also suggest to have or to suggest the JMSSerializerBundle as > a core bundle in the Standard Edition as it's provide many interesting > features for the Serializer. > > My 2 cents. > > -- > > Hugo HAMON > Trainings Manager > [email protected] > +33 (0) 140.998.211 > 92-98 boulevard Victor Hugo > Entrée A2/A3 - 92 115 Clichy Cedex - www.sensiolabs.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 24/08/12 10:38, « Lukas Kahwe Smith » <[email protected]> a écrit : > > >Aloha, > > > >Quo vadis? > > > >The core serializer component is quite easy to grasp. It can work for > >many simpler use cases and is decently extensible for these use cases. > >However it has some limitations, specifically at times its difficult to > >get an optimized representation in multiple output formats (say XML and > >JSON) from the same data structure. Furthermore all configuration must be > >set directly on the serializer itself (see also > >https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/4938). > > > >Then there is JMSSerializerBundle. This Bundle is very powerful at > >serializing object graphs and can handle generation of output optimized > >for multiple output formats from the same data structure. Furthermore the > >configuration is done on the objects themselves. However its support for > >array's isnt really good and often times its necessary to cast objects to > >other's in order to better control this configuration. Furthermore the > >visitor pattern is harder to grasp but much more powerful. Also note that > >currently the Bundle does not use the core interfaces all though we have > >done changes to those interfaces for 2.1 to make it possible. > > > >Now the question is what should we have in core? Should we even have a > >serializer in core? Should that serializer rather be along the lines of > >JMSSerializerBundle? Should we have both approaches in core (of course > >using the same interfaces)? > > > >Discuss .. :) > > > >regards, > >Lukas Kahwe Smith > >[email protected] > > > > > > > >-- > >If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to > >security at symfony-project.com > > > >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >Groups "symfony developers" group. > >To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >[email protected] > >For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en > > > > > -- > If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to > security at symfony-project.com > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "symfony developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en > -- If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to security at symfony-project.com You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
