My 2 cents.
For classes with a reachable namespace from the window / global and
serializable arguments, you could use an ad-hoc structure to define complex
values:
```js
// the converter
const toJSONStruct = value =>
Object.defineProperty(
{
"arguments": Symbol.iterator in value ?
[[...value]] :
[value.valueOf()]
},
"__proto__",
{
enumerable: true,
value: value.constructor.name
}
);
// the replacer (basic example)
const replacer = (key, value) => {
if (
typeof value === 'object' &&
value &&
!/^(?:Array|Object)$/.test(value.constructor.name)
) return toJSONStruct(value);
return value;
};
```
Here how you can produce some JSON
```js
// example of a complex value
JSON.stringify(
{
property: new Uint8Array([10, 20, 30])
},
replacer,
' '
);
/*
{
"property": {
"arguments": [
[
10,
20,
30
]
],
"__proto__": "Uint8Array"
}
}
*/
```
A revirer example:
```js
const reviver = (key, value) => {
if (
typeof value === 'object' &&
value !== null &&
value.hasOwnProperty('__proto__')
) {
const Class = value.__proto__
.split('.')
.reduce((O, K) => O[K], window);
return new Class(...value.arguments);
}
return value;
};
```
and a quick proof of the demo:
```js
console.log(
JSON.parse(
`{
"property": {
"arguments": [
[
10,
20,
30
]
],
"__proto__": "Uint8Array"
}
}`,
reviver
)
);
```
Having this standardized, since it's very unlikely anyone would use
`__proto__` key for a different reason, seems like an easier way to reason
about complex serialized values.
Having `toJSON` and or `toJSONConstructor` able to return such struct
instead of needing `toJSONStruct` would be even better.
Best Regards
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trying again...
>
> It turned out that the Oracle/Java JSON API actually is I-JSON compatible
> by default through a method which I have coined "Adaptive Notation":
>
> {
> "BigDecimal.large": "1E+999",
> "BigDecimal.small": 1,
> "BigInteger.large": "240777489003222785532321",
> "BigInteger.small": 1,
> "Long.large": "9223372036854775807",
> "Long.small": 1
> }
>
> Personally I prefer schemes where you either use JSON Number or JSON
> String, rather than mixing these depending on the actual value.
>
> However, the most important is finding a common solution.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Anders
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
