Yes... What I just committed into a separate branch did the pther way around. I'll make the other one after dinner.
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Kent Sølvsten <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
