Glib json #480
Merged
Glib json #480
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hey @SeeSpotRun,
That's actually a crucial property for the following reasons:
So, yes, I think you should go with JsonGenerator. IIRC you don't need to instance a new one on each element, but can just call |
|
Yeah I kind of realised that as soon as I documented the PR. Oh well, less elegant but not the end of the world. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Note this PR was branched off earlier PR #479 to simplify possible merging.
Should address #464 and #463 and make json handling more robust in future.
One side-effect of this implementation is that the json file doesn't get written until right at the end. The previous implementation writes to file as the results come in.
To do similar buffering with json-glib would require manually writing the opening and closing
[and]to file, as well as the,'s between array elements, and using a new JsonGenerator for each element. So it can be done but it's less elegant. But if we we run into problems keeping the JsonArray in memory then we might have to go that way anyway.Thoughts @sahib ?