Re: Jason is getting MARRIED!

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-24 16:00:40

On 11/24/19 3:59 AM, Bjorn Reese via Boost wrote:
> On 11/17/19 5:05 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> 
>> Implementing JSON for boost serialization wouldn't be very hard. I'm 
>> suprised that in 15? years no one has done it.  In fact no one has even 
> 
> This is news to those of us who have used them for years:
> 
> 
> http://breese.github.io/trial/protocol/trial_protocol/json/user_guide/serialization.html 
> 
>  Â  http://cppcms.com/wikipp/en/page/cppcms_1x_serialization
> 
> both of which have been mentioned several times on this mailing-list.

Hmmmm- I'm not seeing how this relates to my point.

> 
> Not to mentions all those who had to resort to using Boost.PropertyTree
> for JSON serialization.
> 
> Or the GSOC 2013 JSON proposal...
> 
>> asked for it!.  Were I to do it, I'd follow the design using boost 
>> spirit which has served me well for many years.  It's easy to 
>> maintain, relatively simple to implement, efficient enough so that no 
>> one has complained about when used for xml.  It turned xml 
>> serializaton ( a dumb concept I felt I had to implement) into a 
>> non-issue.
> 
> The Boost.Spirit approach works for XML because you have effectively
> created a pull parser, which is the approach I have been arguing for.

So we're in agreement?

> I have yet to see a push parser (which Vinnie's parser is) work for
> serialization.

Right. I don't think it can.  So we're in agreement again?  it's hard to 
tell.

Robert Ramey

Just to re-iterate:  My points are:

a) I don't think it would be hard to make a JSON version of a 
serialization archive class using the XML archive as a model.

b) As far as I know, now one has done it.

c) As far as I can recall - no one has asked me for it.  If the have I 
likely responded with a) above.

RR
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost