Closed briaguya-ai closed 1 month ago
yeah, RawJson
isn't the greatest name, it's actually "nlohmann parsed json," i'm ok with just Json
but if we want to indicate the nlohmann-ness of it in the name somehow that works for me too
yeah,
RawJson
isn't the greatest name, it's actually "nlohmann parsed json," i'm ok with justJson
but if we want to indicate the nlohmann-ness of it in the name somehow that works for me too
Not sure we need to capture that it's nlohmann personally. Can you think of a reason why we would ever use two different parsing libraries at the same time?
Can you think of a reason why we would ever use two different parsing libraries at the same time?
i'd expect we wouldn't want to do that, only thing i can think of is if we wanted to move to a different json parsing library it'd be easier to do a deprecation process where we have NLJson
and NewParsingLibJson
around at the same time, then drop NLJson
, but we could probably handle that with feature flags instead. i'll move forward with renaming it to Json
Can you think of a reason why we would ever use two different parsing libraries at the same time?
i'd expect we wouldn't want to do that, only thing i can think of is if we wanted to move to a different json parsing library it'd be easier to do a deprecation process where we have
NLJson
andNewParsingLibJson
around at the same time, then dropNLJson
, but we could probably handle that with feature flags instead. i'll move forward with renaming it toJson
If the argument is for supporting new and old json libraries in a transition period, my suggest would be to call it Json
and rename it to JsonLegacy
when we need that.
verified working in soh https://github.com/HarbourMasters/Shipwright/pull/4063