On 12/5/06, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Hi Elias,
> Please, I think I am the naive one around here as I'm just getting my
> wet with Atom and Abdera. :-)
> Agreed that JSON and XML are not so easily mapped to each other. The
> xml:base/id/lang stuff slipped my mind as a potential issue. It seems
> all the xml:base handling is in the FOM* classes right? So the JSON
> always outputs the full IRIs?

That's my intent at least although the code hasn't been thoroughly
tested. I think we are calling getHref() instead of getResolvedHref().
But anyways, that's the kinds of things we can do in a custom writer as
opposed to one that reads it from XML. However, it's still unresolved
how to map 80% of the most commonly used Atom elements into JSON without
making it too complicated (e.g. doing string checks for '@' or
maintaining $-namespaces) for the end-user.

Personally I hate the $ namespaces. Jettison does require an @ for
attributes, so that is another limitation of it. (I could allow users to
override this, which might be a nice feature, but I don't know that it makes
any difference for this case)

> And yes, it would not be that hard for a user to use Jettison with the
> current APIs. I was just wondering if it made sense to use it instead of
> custom mapping. If no, thats OK, thats just one of the things I'm trying
> figure out.

I guess we could have "multiple" JSONWriters, but I'm not sure we are
needing that just yet. I think that as we get more users, we'll be able
to work out a good representation and stick with it. Maybe it's one of
the automagic ones, maybe it's a custom one.

I wonder if there will ever be a standard Atom-JSON mapping... I'm starting
to see how a custom one makes sense in this case, so I'd probably say stick
with custom and people can use Jettison if they need it. Putting Jettison in
by default sounds like a square peg for a round hole.

- Dan

Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Reply via email to