[cl-json-devel] Question about NIL translation

[Robert P. Goldman]

I have most of a patch for providing JSON-RPC 2.0 support. I will try  
to submit it by the end of the week.

What about a json-rpc type of :Boolean? This would take the raw output  
of the cl function and turn it into true or false according to cl  
rules. We could also have a type of :array as alternative, that would  
turn any sequence into a json array and would turn NIL into []  
(singleton return values would signal an error).

Just a thought; haven't considered the implications deeply...

On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:10, Henrik Hjelte <henrik at evahjelte.com> wrote:

>> What about making the type argument to defun-json-rpc optional  
>> instead
>> of mandatory.  If the default is explicit encoding then we'd still  
>> have
>> backward compatibility without adding a new, more verbose-named  
>> defun?
>
> yes, good idea. I had actually forgotten I had added some support for
> different encoders in json-rpc.
>
> I think the reason I don't had the type argument optional is because I
> am a weak coder, I just don't  know how to make type &optional in the
> right way. I guess you can put all three type lambda-list and body as
> one &rest and parse it. On the other hand: I personally don't have a
> strong problem with breaking backwards compatibilty in this way, it is
> only for a small subset of cl-json and it breaks you old code in an
> "nice" way, throwing an error that is easy to fix.
>
> (defmacro defun-json-rpc (name type lambda-list &body body)
>
>>
>> The CL-JSON spec for 1.1 seems like a real mess --- it's not at all
>> clear what should happen if you invoke a method over CL-JSON that
>> returns a null value (e.g., a JS function with no return).
>>
>> The 2.0 (draft) spec seems to have a much clearer approach to  
>> this....
>>
>> I'm inclined to just move to observing the draft 2.0 spec.
>
> Yes why not? I am not aware of the exact differences, except that 2.0
> has named parameters.
>
> Maybe it is possible to expose a function both as 1.1 and 2.0?
>
> /Henrik