01.04.2019, 13:43, "Vasily Pupkin" <shkodindanil.letmew...@gmail.com>: > Thanks for the answers. > >> I'm not sure I want to see more Datastream-based serialisation. The code >> there >> is too fragile and not compatible enough with standards. I recommend you >> reconsider and think about a more standard format. > > Just wanted to clarify, that I am working on a solution, which is totaly > different from datastream serialization (and opposes it) and is format > agnostic. It has an abstract module, which can be implemented for XML, JSON > and so on. > The API would be QByteArray serialize(const QVariant& value), and QVariant > might be a gadget or a collection of any depth. The only thing it does, is > peaking inside QVariant and recursively (de)serializes properties or items. > >> This is a very lossy conversion without sufficient error reporting. That's an >> example of why I don't think we should invest more time in this type of API. > > Thanks for pointing this out. > >> Nor I. That code is black magic to me and I don't touch it. > > Is it going to be left like that forever :( ?
Someone has to step up as a maintainer for that code, otherwise it's entirely up to Thiago to decide its fate. -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
