Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
> I'm about to work a bit on z3c.schema2json [1]. As has been briefly 
> discussed before (a while ago [2]), z3c. schema2json is so similar to 
> z3c.schema2xml [3] 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 - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to