From: VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira (vini.ipsmaker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-21 19:34:06
Em seg., 21 de set. de 2020 Ã s 16:19, Hans Dembinski via Boost
> On second thought, the Archive concept probably needs an extension to work with json::value.
> While writing is no problem, reading is a challenge.
It depends on the lens you use. The archive concept overloads
primitive types to be serializable. Other serializables are always
built on top of the primitives the underlying archive has special code
>From one lens, you're using json::value against json::archive. If
that's the case, it has special code here, so fine and everything
works as has been described in previous emails.
>From the second lens, you have a problem, external archive. And here,
the rest of the rationale you described in your email applies.
You do need extensions in a separate concept thou. If you want to
control beautiful JSON serialization, you need to expose a few
extensions like BjÃ¸rn has done in his serialization code. I do
disagree about a few things he has done, but we can reach consensus in
One thing I want to develop here is integration to Boost.Hana
reflection. If you have integration to Boost.Hana Struct concept, it
helps a ton. First, creating new serializables will be very easy.
Second, you avoid the whole "index/buffer/backtrack/lookahead" problem
you guys mentioned. This won't work for push parsers, but pull parsers
will benefit a lot.
> Bottom line, it is not so easy as I thought.
True. I do would like to discuss this subject, but I need to organize
my own thoughts first. It'd be nice if you, Mathias Gaunard, Robert
Ramey, and other stakeholders could gather together to explore this
topic in detail after Boost.JSON review.
-- VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk