Re: Wish-list

I'd probably tackle that with a "strict" switch.  If strict=true then you
throw an exception when unsupported content is recognized.  If strict=false
then you silently ignore it (or maybe trace/debug level log it).
  (*Chris*)

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Rolf Lear <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So, searching the interweb, I see some discussion about JSON parsers... I
> don't see a SAX specific one, but there appear to be a number of StAX-like
> ones.... and we have StAX support directly now... ;-)
>
> Loading JSON in to JDOM is probably a lot simpler than the opposite
> though....
>
> I don't see how anything but a simple XML document could be output as a
> JSON 'output'.... the challenge would be how to deal with the 'unusual'
> XML-like concepts, rather than the easy stuff?
>
> Like, if your XML has a namespace, then what?
>
> Rolf
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:38:03 -0700, Chris Pratt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but all that JDOM would need for that to work
> > would be a JSON SAX parser and a JSON Outputter.  Those could even be
> > packaged in a companion jar file for those that want the JDOM JSON
> support.
> >   (*Chris*)
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Brad Cox <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> This is based on experience using both, not a deep analysis. More with
> >> XML
> >> than JSON to date. This work was in the context of building XACML
> >> compilers
> >> that use the W3C DOM tree as their expression tree. And inspired by
> >> recent
> >> W3C mailing list  discussions on standardizing a JSON syntax for XACML.
> >>
> >> They seem to be  viewing JSON as I do, as a useful subset of XML, with
> >> lack of namespaces and attributes the main differences I can think of
> at
> >> the moment. Lack of attributes not a problem for XACML; it hardly uses
> >> them, just element values.
> >>
> >> The notion is to add a JSON parser in front that builds the same XML
> >> (J)DOM tree you build now, plus a output path that converts the tree to
> >> JSON on demand. The proposed extension is appealing because it would
> >> allow
> >> the same XACML compiler to accept standard XACML and/or standard JSON,
> >> and
> >> to trivially convert between the representations.
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Rolf Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would *love* to hear how you expect JDOM (XML-based) and JSON to
> 'hang
> >>> out' in the same place .... ;-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cell: 703-594-1883
> >> Blog: http://bradjcox.blogspot.com
> >> Web: http://virtualschool.edu
> >> Manassas VA 20111
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> >> http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/[email protected]
> >>
>

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/[email protected]