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.Â In fact no one has even
> This is news to those of us who have used them for years:
> 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!.Â Were I to do it, I'd follow the design using boost
>> spirit which has served me well for many years.Â It's easy to
>> maintain, relatively simple to implement, efficient enough so that no
>> one has complained about when used for xml.Â It turned xml
>> serializaton ( a dumb concept I felt I had to implement) into a
> 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
Right. I don't think it can. So we're in agreement again? it's hard to
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.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk