[jboss-as7-dev] json vs custom parser

[David M. Lloyd]

Ah.  Well that would be an interesting experiment if nothing else.

On 02/02/2011 10:24 AM, Jason T. Greene wrote:
> I just mean a temporary "porting" thing, not a permanent change to the
> project. It's just using GWT as a one time porting tool. It saves maybe
> an hour of recreating it.
>
> On 2/2/11 10:22 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>> I dunno I think this would be more work than just writing a trivial
>> little JS marshaller.  I think changing the native Java API to
>> accommodate GWT is taking it too far - I mean we're talking about making
>> these things not serializable.
>>
>> On 02/02/2011 10:20 AM, Jason T. Greene wrote:
>>> That's an interesting idea. If nothing else we could use GWT to port it
>>> javascript once, implement the IO bits in native javascript, and then
>>> maintain the whole thing as just a javascript library. Then you could
>>> use JSNI to talk to it.
>>>
>>> Initally I am doing JSON over HTTP, but we could also do binary-dmr over
>>> HTTP following this approach. We could use a simple http header to
>>> indicate the need for the binary response.
>>>
>>> On 2/2/11 3:37 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would it be possible to decouple the marshalling components from the raw model?
>>>> This would allow us to re-use ModelNode, etc directly in GWT without having to write
>>>> another parallel hierarchy. The problems in this case are the imports on java.io, etc that the GWT
>>>> compiler chokes on.
>>>>
>>>> Ike
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:27 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's in ModelNode (readExternal and writeExternal).
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/01/2011 07:14 PM, Scott Stark wrote:
>>>>>> Where are the binary protocol handlers located?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
- DML