On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stef,
>
>> On 24 Sep 2017, at 12:26, Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sven
>>
>> For Moose we are wondering if we can use STON to save/load models
>> instead of MSE.
>> - I'm sure we can :)
>>
>> Now my little friends would like to kill two or three birds with the
>> same stone :)
>>
>> Would it be possible to use STON to handle cycles but to generate JSON
>> compatible
>> in the following sense:
>>
>> Class {
>> "id": 123,
>> "name" : "A"
>> }
>>
>> =>
>>
>> {
>> "id": 123,
>> "type" : "Class",
>> "name" : "A"
>> }
>>
>> It means that we could be able to output an extra field and when we
>> read that the materialiser
>> would create an entity based on the type field for example.
>>
>> Am I thinking something totally wrong?
>
> I am not sure how to answer.
>
> It should be possible to use STON as it is, no ?
No because they want to have JSON syntax
ie.
{
"id": 123,
"type" : "Class",
"name" : "A"
}
and not
Class {
"id": 123,
"name" : "A"
}
> JSON is different, as you know. NeoJSON was not designed to work with such
> dynamic types, its optional mapping mechanism works with a static type map.
> STON is a format with an implementation, it is not designed as a general
> purpose object visitor.
To me STON is nearly what we need
- handling cycles
- nearly JSON
But else we will have to redo our own way to handle cycles again so
this is why if we could avoid it would be good.
>
> Sven
>
>> Stef
>
