Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
> I'm about to work a bit on z3c.schema2json . As has been briefly
> discussed before (a while ago ), z3c. schema2json is so similar to
> z3c.schema2xml  in what it does and how it does it, that I wonder
> about merging the two packages somehow.
> One way to do this - maybe - is to use named registrations for the
> (de)serialization adapters. The name could reflect the serialization
> "mode" - for example "xml" or "json".
> But maybe there're other ideas to achieve this? Or, could it be that
> merging has no real benefit?
I'm still not sure there'd be a real benefit. It depends on how much
code would end up being shared. If a lot of code is shared it might make
sense to merge them (or factor the code out into a general schema-based
serialization and deserialization framework). If it turns out your
improvements to z3c.schema2json also make sense in z3c.schema2xml then
that's an argument in favor of sharing code between them.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -