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
This is more a feature request. I would like to use JSV like now, but I would
also want JSV to be able to serialize/deserialize the types of the stored
objects.
I know how to do that by myself with a simple object, but when you have several
nested objects, it starts to be complicated.
Maybe as an option? So, people can use both for POCO or for full class
serialization/deserialization.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by mvolmaro@gmail.com on 23 Sep 2010 at 4:07
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Sorry, I think I missed reading this feature request.
I don't actually know what you mean by:
"I would also want JSV to be able to serialize/deserialize the types of the
stored objects"?
Original comment by demis.be...@gmail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 4:45
Basically, that means that I can have a property defined as "object", but its
real type is, for example, a class.
Right now, the object (class) is serialized properly, but it is impossible to
deserialize it back since its type information can not be inferred from the
original object (as its base class is "object").
I know how to handle this with one or two properties, but when you do not have
access to the source of the object you want to serialize (my case) it is simply
impossible to deserialize a serialized object.
You call them "Late-bound objects" and have a blog entry about them...
Original comment by mvolmaro@gmail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 5:28
Oh yeah in that case, Unfortunately I don't expect to do any more changes on
that front. The way its currently implemented is optimized for size and speed.
If you need to auto-support late-bound objects you're going to have to come up
with a similar solution as outlined in my post, sorry.
Original comment by demis.be...@gmail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 5:51
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
mvolmaro@gmail.com
on 23 Sep 2010 at 4:07The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: