We have one James, we just need to ask Ben to check in I believe. -Elias
James M Snell wrote: > One new thing that would definitely be cool is a JSON-to-Atom Parser. > Impl the Parser interface, take json as input and output FOM classes. > > - James > > Elias Torres wrote: >> Dan Diephouse wrote: >>> 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 >>>> feet >>>>> 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 >>>> that >>>>> all the xml:base handling is in the FOM* classes right? So the JSON >>>> support >>>>> 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) >> Right. >> >>>>> 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 >>>> a >>>>> custom mapping. If no, thats OK, thats just one of the things I'm >>>> trying >>>> to >>>>> 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. >> I think there will be an Atom-JSON mapping, but it's not until APP >> really starts getting some use out there. Hopefully, we'll be ready to >> help with that. >> >> Thanks for you interest in Abdera and we are pleased to have you using >> it and finding ways to make it better. >> >> -Elias >> >>> - Dan >>> >
