On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 02:57, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:

As I merrily chat to myself - I noticed that STONWriter almost does what I need - it just complains in #writeAssociation: so I make a subclass STONJSONWriter and override:

writeAssociation: association
�� don��t smack me��.
�� jsonMode
�� ifTrue: [ self error: 'wrong object class for JSON mode' ]."
�� self
�� encodeKey: association key
�� value: association value

I get exactly what I would expect - valid Json from simple Collections, Associations and Array.

So would it be handy to have such a writer in the image (or let STONWriter be more configurable for this?)

Tim

p.s. my finally example would then be:

ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'.
�� 'language' -> 'smalltalk'.
�� 'exercises' ->
�� {'slug' -> 'hello'.
�� 'id' -> 55.
�� 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') }
�� }.

String streamContents: [ :stream |
�� (STONJSONWriter on: (stream))
�� jsonMode: true;
�� prettyPrint: true;��
�� writeList: ex ].

> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:45, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
>
> Just to add more flavour to this - it seems quite wordy that we have to do this (or equivalent) to write some config.
>
> ex := OrderedDictionary new
>�� at: 'track' put: 'pharo';
>�� at: 'language' put: 'smalltalk';
>�� at: 'exercises' put: (
>�� OrderedDictionary new
>�� at: 'slug' put: 'hello';
>�� at: 'id' put: 55;
>�� at: 'topics' put: #('a' 'b' 'c');
>�� yourself );
>�� yourself.
>��
> String streamContents: [ :stream |
>�� (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true;
>�� mapInstVarsFor: Association;
>�� nextPut: ex ].
>
> So I��m still wondering the NeoJSONObjectMapping can do something easy for Association other than simply mapInstVars?
>
>
>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:36, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sven - is there no convenience shortcut we can use in our code to make this less wordy when we are specifying it?
>>
>> E.g. the following is very convenient to write - but doesn��t work (as you have $�� and not $�� )
>>
>> ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'.
>>�� 'language' -> 'smalltalk'.
>>�� 'exercises' ->
>>�� {'slug' -> 'hello'.
>>�� 'id' -> 55.
>>�� 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') }
>>�� }.
>>��
>> String streamContents: [ :stream |
>>�� (STONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true;�� writeList: ex ].
>>
>> I had thought maybe NeoJSON might help and put:
>>
>> String streamContents: [ :stream |
>>�� (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true;
>>�� "mapInstVarsFor: Association;"
>>�� nextPut: ex ].
>>
>> But I get the error about missing an association mapping. If I uncomment that bit - I get things like: { "value" : ��pharo" },
>>
>> So is there a way I can write a simple mapper for Association that will write out the key in a string and the value in a string?
>>
>> I��m quite suprised we can��t easily write out fragments of Json in our code in a light weight way? Or do I need to make a proper Config object and then teach it how to map properly such that rather than fiddling with our { x->y } dictionary sugar I do something like:
>>
>> Config new at: ��id�� is: 123; at: ��name�� is: ��Tim��; at: ��exercises�� is: #(1 2 3).
>>
>> And I guess at:is: can do the Association asDictionary thing?
>>
>> But I thought Neo might give me something like that, as it must be terribly common?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> STONJSON toString: { #id->1. #name->'tim' } asDictionary.
>>>
>>> JSON cannot deal with Associations by themselves.
>>>
>>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:05, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am stumped about how to write out some simple json (for a config file). I didn't think I need Neo, and STONJSON would be fine but it seems like creating items like:
>>>>
>>>> { 'id'-> self id. 'name' -> self name }
>>>>
>>>> gives an error about the association. I think you have to do: { ('id'-> self id) asDictionary. ('name' -> self name) asDictionary } everywhere��.
>>>>
>>>> But when I switch over to NeoJsonWriter it also complains about Assocations too. I just want a simple output like:
>>>> { "id" : 12, "name" : "tim�� }
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was simple to do this? Am I missing something obvious.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>