Re: Wish-list

Maybe you're seeing something I'm missing, but my reason for proposing this
is to support JSON syntax (subsetted, minus namespaces and attributes)
within the SAME (JDOM) data model. I see them as providing different syntax
for the *same* semantics, in exactly the sense that the Java code my
compilers generate for XACML are just another syntax with exactly the same
semantics as in the original XML/XACML source. The same would/should be
true of a JSON XACML source document.

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Michael Kay <[email protected]> wrote:

>  But JSON and XML are not just two different syntaxes. They are
> fundamentally different data models. It's not at all clear why someone
> would want to use something as complex as the XML data model to hold
> something as simple as JSON.
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
>
>
> On 10/05/2012 19:22, Brad Cox wrote:
>
> The best reason for doing it in JDOM I know of is for the two external
> syntaxes to share EXACTLY the same DOM tree with flawless conversion
> between them (subject to the JDOM as XML subset notion). If that could be
> arranged with a separate tool that would do too.
>
>  FWIW: The JDOM parser I settled on is Jackson. There are a bunch of
> others.
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Michael Kay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There's been a lot of work on JSON-to-XML and XML-to-JSON
>> transformations. There is no single answer that works well in all cases.
>> There is a tension between being lossless and producing something that is
>> usable. An XML-to-JSON transformation that can handle mixed content may
>> produce indigestible output for simple data-oriented XML.
>>
>> I don't think there is any good architectural reason to regard XML-JSON
>> transformation as being part of the same component in the architecture as
>> an XML tree model. Just because it needs doing doesn't mean it needs doing
>> in JDOM. To me it's best kept separate.
>>
>> Michael Kay
>> Saxonica
>>
>>
>> On 10/05/2012 16:43, Rolf Lear 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]
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> To control your jdom-interest membership:
>> http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/[email protected]
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Cell: 703-594-1883
> Blog: http://bradjcox.blogspot.com
> Web: http://virtualschool.edu
> Manassas VA 20111
>
>


-- 
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]