b. Keep the Map serialization for now as it is. c. Plan the change for 3.0 later in the year, giving us a bit of time to figure out the migration.
Agreed a. Change NamedAssociation to be serialized in "object" form now. You mean change the deserializer to expect object form, right? /Kent Den 21-05-2015 kl. 12:25 skrev Paul Merlin: > Niclas Hedhman a écrit : >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Paul Merlin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Looking at it today I don't know why key order should matter. >>> I'd say that having more idiomatic JSON would make usage less contrived, >>> which would be a good thing. >> I agree that is very desirable, and it is now mostly a matter of how to >> handle data migration, if we go with Kent's advice. >> >> Obviously no one uses NamedAssociation, since I can't see that this ever >> worked, as there is a mismatch (serialize object and deserialize an array) >> at the moment. >> >> Kent, good to know that JS is cool with that. >> >> The quickest fix was to change the Serializer to match the Deserializer for >> NamedAssociations. And I am committing that version shortly in a separate >> branch... >> >> But, while discussing this, I think we should do this; >> >> a. Change NamedAssociation to be serialized in "object" form now. >> b. Keep the Map serialization for now as it is. >> c. Plan the change for 3.0 later in the year, giving us a bit of time to >> figure out the migration. >> >> WDYT? > Sounds like a good plan. > >
