Not able to analyse from My holliday on crete. But: provided we wont run into trouble with illegal charterselskaber in XML elements i agree . I Thing the default should be changed for 3.0 though. Den 12/07/2015 16.58 skrev "Niclas Hedhman" <[email protected]>:
> Gang, > The StaxValueSerialization format is very verbose, and possibly only > suitable with an XML browser (i.e. a regular browser with a CSS to make it > into tables) > > From testcase; > <?xml version="1.1" > > encoding="utf-8"?><object><field><name>number</name><value>42</value></field><field><name>nullString</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>emptyString</name><value></value></field><field><name>stringList</name><value><array></array></value></field><field><name>anotherNull</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>anotherListNull</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>anotherListEmpty</name><value><array></array></value></field><field><name>testEnum</name><value>somevalue</value></field><field><name>foo</name><value><object><field><name>_type</name><value>org.qi4j.test.value.AbstractValueCompositeSerializationTest$FooValue</value></field><field><name>bar</name><value></value></field></object></value> > > <snip/> > > I doubt anybody is using it, and my question is whether it should be kept > at all, or I should do the same as I did with JSON Maps format, where the > current format is default, and that a Options flag indicates a leaner > format, where the tag name is the property name and the element value is > the value. > > WDYAT? > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java >
