Wanted: Review manager for std.data.json

[Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d]

Am 16.04.2015 um 13:03 schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2015-04-16 11:29, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>
>> I'd like to let that be part of a more general serialization framework
>> in top of this package instead of integrating a simplistic custom
>> solution that will then later be obsoleted.
>
> I was thinking about some low level primitives that a serialization
> library could use. Types that cannot be broken in to smaller parts,
> integer, bool and so on.
>
>> Having said that, you can go through JSONToken instead of JSONValue
>> for lower (computational) overhead.
>
> Something like?
>
> JSONToken token;
> token.number = 3;
> token.kind = JSONToken.Kind.number;
> toJSON(token);

Yes, just without setting the kind explicitly (it's set automatically by 
assigning to the number property). Instead of toJSON(), writeJSON() 
would probably be more appropriate to avoid additional allocations.

>
> Or what would you recommend a serialization library used?
>

The simplest target for a serialization library would be to generate a 
stream of JSONParserNodes. That way the serializer doesn't have to keep 
track of nesting levels and can reuse the pretty printing functionality 
of stdx.data.generator.

However, this currently requires an input range of JSONParserNodes, 
which looks like it is suboptimal for a serializer (either requires an 
explicitly allocated node array, or a strange serializer architecture 
that directly works as an input range). For that reason I'm thinking 
about providing an output range interface like so:

	auto dst = appender!string;
	auto rng = jsonOutputRange(dst);

	JSONParserNode n;
	// start an object
	n.kind = JSONParserNode.Kind.objectStart;
	rng.put(n);

	// write a single entry "foo": 10.5
	n.key = "foo";
	rng.put(n);
	rng.put(10.5);

	// write another entry "bar": true
	n.key = "bar";
	rng.put(n);
	rng.put(true);

	// finish the object
	n.kind = JSONParserNode.Kind.objectEnd;
	rng.put(n);

	writefln("JSON: %s", dst.data);

What do you think?

BTW, looks like JSONToken could use a set of constructors for more 
convenient in-place construction.