[gwt-contrib] Re: Which API for a future, modern JSON library?

I am glad to announce the latest jackson-apt that provide support for using the same mapper instance on both client side and server side, finally you can annotate the type in the shared module and generate a mapper into the shared module and use it in both client code and server code, sample

[gwt-contrib] Re: Which API for a future, modern JSON library?

Hi I have been working on an adaptation of gwt-jackson that uses APT instead of generators https://github.com/vegegoku/gwt-jackson-apt now i have plans to support using the same API for both client side and server side and want to consider the JsXxxx types as supported types for

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Which API for a future, modern JSON library?

The problem with most existing APIs is that they tend to use polymorphism, and expressions like "value instanceof JsonArray". This makes it hard to map to a plain Javascript object. After much frustration, we have recently rolled our own json library, that combines the old JSON elemental

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Which API for a future, modern JSON library?

Inline with what others asked; I think it is best to start with emulating an existing established API instead of introducing a new proprietary API - assuming they could be emulated with a reasonable performance. On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > On

[gwt-contrib] Re: Which API for a future, modern JSON library?

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:44:07 PM UTC+1, Slava Pankov wrote: > > I think it's better to replicate GSON like API on client side. Another > option is doing better version of RestyGWT without GWT.create() > Do you mean GSON's JsonElement API, or mapping to POJOs? If the latter, then

[gwt-contrib] Re: Which API for a future, modern JSON library?

I think it's better to replicate GSON like API on client side. Another option is doing better version of RestyGWT without GWT.create() On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:25:04 AM UTC-8, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > Hi all, > > Following up on >

[gwt-contrib] Re: Which API for a future, modern JSON library?

Out of curiosity, why not use the org.json API? jay On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 8:13:40 AM UTC-8, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:01:41 PM UTC+1, Colin Alworth wrote: >> >> Thanks Thomas, I'm excited to see where this will lead. >> >> Can you talk a little more

[gwt-contrib] Re: Which API for a future, modern JSON library?

Thanks Thomas, I'm excited to see where this will lead. Can you talk a little more about plans POJO support, as none of the three existing options have any? Would you envision a wrapping tool that looks like AutoBean/gwt-jackson, and where on that continuum are you thinking (autobean is as