You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
RareJson should support opt-in (with annotations) flattening of super classes and nested objects.
e.g.
struct Parent { int a; ... }
struct Child : Parent { int b; ... }
Which today when writing child would come out something like...
{
"b": 12345,
"parent": {
"a": 12345
}
}
Should be possible to instead have written like...
{
"a": 12345,
"b": 12345
}
Some of the challenges identified earlier were as follows:
1.) Flattening should potentially apply recursively, pulling the hierarchy of ancestor classes into sub-classes if directed to do so
2.) Data-hiding and naming collisions need to be accounted for
3.) Open questions of whose field clusters unknown fields belong to
4.) There's no reason flattening couldn't also apply to regular fields of certain types, such as nested reflected objects
5.) There's a huge amount of logic changes related to pretty print and affixing that this would necessitate - you can no longer rely on analysis of the current object to tell if something is the first field
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
RareJson should support opt-in (with annotations) flattening of super classes and nested objects.
e.g.
Which today when writing child would come out something like...
Should be possible to instead have written like...
Some of the challenges identified earlier were as follows:
1.) Flattening should potentially apply recursively, pulling the hierarchy of ancestor classes into sub-classes if directed to do so
2.) Data-hiding and naming collisions need to be accounted for
3.) Open questions of whose field clusters unknown fields belong to
4.) There's no reason flattening couldn't also apply to regular fields of certain types, such as nested reflected objects
5.) There's a huge amount of logic changes related to pretty print and affixing that this would necessitate - you can no longer rely on analysis of the current object to tell if something is the first field
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: