.Net Foundation Design Reviews, 18 Jun 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: .NET Design Review: Nullable Reflection APIs + JSON

Description

00:00:00 - Approved: Allow X509Chain to replace the root trust list for a single call https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/16364#issuecomment-503226830
00:07:08 - Needs Work: Expose top-level nullability information from reflection https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/38087#issuecomment-503265497
01:50:04 - Approved: Support for custom converters and OnXXX callbacks https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/36639#issuecomment-503265607

A

All right, let's do this, so this is a crypto API. So what is it allow x.509 chain to replace the root trust this for seeing a call and I read all these words: they're English the minute. So what.

B

Does it actually do all right? So whenever you build.

C

A certificate chain, whether it be on Windows, Mac or Linux, the only functionality that we have right now is when you build a chain, it will tell you whether or not the chain is trusted by the both the OS. Sometimes users can influence their personal policy.

C

Things like revocation, are only checked if the chain was trusted by the system. This just prevents a certain amount of network waste when we weren't going to trust it. So why bother check there are times when people don't want to don't want to or can't alter system trust, but they want to know if the chain meets a set of rules that they have. Sometimes it's more restrictive.

C

Sometimes it's in addition to, and so then this adds a collection of certificates that we will use instead of the system trust list to determine if the chain is trustworthy right now. The trust vote only has two values in the Ino system, which is doing the thing we were already doing, which then it will throw if you put anything in the custom, trust store, because your misconfigured and custom trust, which are custom root, trust, which means we will ignore anything in the custom, trust or that's not self signed, do a little ignore it.

C

Instead of when do you through all when you call x5 at unchain that build so we say that the policy is in anomalous state, but.

A

I can still set cross more and added. We move from custom trust where, without any yeah interdependence, the.

C

Chain policy is just a configuration object is when you call X Phi when I change, that.

C

Yeah and then this is an enum, because there are several other scenarios that we can envision. Just this is the start. Small fixed energy default does what it used to do. The system is zero and you can opt into the Navy.

B

Works on all of us should we like it seems very, very to have customer trust and customer trust or, and like should. We just try to align the name well, because one.

C

Of the potential other options is custom anchor, which means that you can say that an intermediate should be considered a trust point. Instead of.

C

Intentionally different names, the.

A

Trust row could be used for another in the members that, were you say, yeah.

A

Anybody else any object. Looking at you Levi, because you're the only one look.

B

I know I've had the scenario before okay make sense.

B

Also it would make so.

C

Many of my x.509 tests capable of being written or written without baby.

B

Sweet right, so somebody else in the car was the little Steven as a family, and so the Bible was changed to include yep I just did yeah. Now the milestone can change the people by the critically ill needs. It's good on the phone you write on it.

C

It's gonna check the box. I don't have the scenario of anymore, because I'm on that team, anymore, right and I don't have time to do the implementation yeah. We.

A

All feel very strongly about the people that we don't deliver. That's great all right. So this is something that we discussed. I want to say offline, but really it's online I can discuss that I'm together with you.

A

So basically what it is is there were some customers particular NBC nef that want to reflect over basically our code at runtime and spend for the customer code at one time to determine whether something is considered malleable and their scenarios are pretty mundane in the sense that they make sense, given what the customer would like to expect to so, for example, EF. Is it easier to experience of a server V F, so f basically uses customer data tribes to effectively create a database on behalf of the of the user?

A

It's called you know the code first approach, where you code up a bunch of types then basically create a table out of that file, and so very often people want to say certain columns are not labelled a month, a label and the way it's done today, any efforts that you were basically how to apply custom attributes.

A

That say this field is required of this field is not required, but determine what the underlying sequel schema is available, column or not, and so now that they have multiple annotations in c-sharp, customers will likely expect that they can put a question mark and then means yeah, it's my first name or middle and property's nullable. Then they would expect the database schema to be malleable as well.

A

Mbc's. Very similar NBC has this model binding approach where, when you invoke a controller they're automatically deserialize paedos that come from the wire, they already have a mechanism for validating that payload. It's called model, validation, I think and then the very first line of code.

A

The people who you write, it's like they say is mortal violation, has arrows, then basically return back and invalid status code or whatever, and then they move on, and so the idea is that when they mark things as no nullable or malleable that the model validation would honor there and basically bailiff if things are marking inaudible, but the payload is missing the data effectively, and so it would be very surprising for people to say well.

A

I marked my my model type is not inaudible, but when I actually get it back from the controller I, you know, I find middle name to be known, for it's, not okay and so again. The work around here is they would have customizable seconds they can put on those properties, but it seems largely redundant given that tea shop has now our first class teacher to do that.

A

So basically, the idea is said: okay, how would people do that? And so today the problem is I. Don't have source code in here, but the way the compiler emits effectively. The malleability information is not exactly straightforward, because there's a byte array involved because you can have constructed generic types of you know I liveable off strings, for example, but those are scenarios that neither MVC nor EF care about. They only care about the total ability. Information like it's the whole property.

A

Now the Polo is the whole method, input inaudible and it's a pretty common pattern that I've seen for other people asking for as well, and so the ideas imaginary would expose it information from the reflection, API, and so the idea would be. You can basically ask the top-level entry is like the parameter or the method, return, type or the event property or field. Whether the thing is not able or not, and generally speaking, there's three states.

A

There is the current set of the world, in which case you know, nothing is recorded, so the state is unknown, Timmy no kami not now, and then there is the new stage where, when you actually put a question mark where you compiled with inaudible turned on for c-sharp, if you don't put a question mark, it's it's markers not now. If you did put a question mark, it's considered, maybe now, and so this would be correct.

D

Sorry, how does this interact with the variations that can come from me? The new attributes, like I, can have a non nullable string. That is then attributed as either allows null, or you know, disallowed no like for a ref parameter or something said dictate whether it can mean all on the way in or the way out, yeah.

A

When I rolled it up I only basically prototyped it with the inaudible attribute, but I would expect that to toerner this as well.

C

E

C

This is s this is pessimistic like if there's any chance, any direction could be null. It's maybe not yeah.

A

I mean basically, it would be if you have a. If you have a method argument, you would basically have to basically would have to mirror what c-sharp does as well at compile time. That would basically be the behavior I.

D

Just sorry, I'm, not understanding what that means. Like.

C

String question mark graph can be attributed as null can come in, but no will never like. If this method doesn't throw, it will not be done once you're done did. What does this? This can't I mean can't talk about that.

E

Parameter in a in a sense of then yep, no right this API, you know D handle just a very simple okay yeah, like my my my general feeling on this entire thing. Before we get.

C

Into any details is because we've been effectively continuing to rewrite the nullable feature until, like we ship that we can't add any api talking about the knowable feature until the next word, like.

D

C

Of what I'm getting at it, there seems to be enough.

D

Variation that rushing this in literally the last minute feels dangerous yeah.

C

We're just gonna end up with an api, that's immediately unusable and we have to replace it with something else because of variations. I couldn't describe.

A

Yeah, what's interesting is that basically we have become some attributes that I haven't considered yet because when I wrote it up, it didn't exist. Yet it's interesting one. The other question is what a new of generics effectively write, because they it would be.

E

Ten examples: I'm gonna better than yeah. Oh stop outside you kind of want to ask. You know these different thinking the double now, although second thinking right.

C

Now the generic you can get from perimeter info right, because the generic type of self is a parameter right right now, but I'm at the info is for metal vomited.

F

Well, that would.

B

Be when it the type parameter place it. You know. Yes,.

C

B

C

B

Type in right, so I mean like at.

C

The end of the day, once we take all the things that say, oh if this generic is a reference type that maybe Nolan, if it's a value type it in wouldn't be null and like we'd, have to call that in like it would make sense to pump it into the API. But if you're talking about the whatever Yann calls the types that have where you say angle bracket and don't fill it in. Like you can't we don't know.

G

The answer you can take yeah so.

C

It opened generic, it's still like we have to go back to the like. Well, maybe.

A

End up yes for open network, it would be the same.

B

State as an attenuated file, it would be unknown right, so I think if there's just going.

C

To be a lot of stuff that this is going to, this will maybe address the 95 percent case, but the five percent case is going to presume or possibly just invalidate anything we're talking about here from the caller's perspective, why are unknown and allows null different from the callers perspective.

A

Because it depends on what you want to do, what if it, for example, let's say you look at the database schema right now, you could say so today. Ef has some sort of default handling for types, but they say certain types we special handle and we basically say: there's a default probability based on heuristics, right, strings I think is one of those and other things.

A

It would say if the state is unknown, you just use whatever default policy you have and there maybe not or not, now, depending on the type and then you say well, but if I know the null ability say then I will just on whatever the nobility state is I. Don't care about the heuristic anymore, using Express, the intent.

C

Because I'm thinking like a okay, so sure that makes sense for EF, because I'm looking at this from the MVC perspective and the MVC is just going to make a boolean decision like yes, I know they could use their existing yeah.

C

Also, does this actually affect reflection itself like if I have a field? That's that disallows null yeah. The reflection forbid me from calling, even if I said well, you know no.

B

Should it I, don't think it should I get.

A

Would say it's the same as at run-time? If you, if you don't know if great, if you do not riff, then today, okay, like it's.

D

Also, no different from like I can use a library, that's completely 100%, annotated and.

G

D

Without annotation, yet with with no ability, disabled, okay, which is the default and then I'm not getting any warnings or anything for yeah, it.

B

Also, don't think it will be practical for us to enforce them, because there will be so many cases.

A

B

Very hard, but it just seems odd to me to have no.

C

Love that like allows null as a first-class citizen on the reflection, API yeah.

A

C

Reflection API is that actually mutate, the values don't alter that so.

A

What's what happened in the conversation I think yeah and hope we can speak to that as well. It's like this I think there's some constraints about basically baking c-sharp isms. If you will into the API I'm somewhat sympathetic to that, but at the same time I don't think of it as this you're a prism as much as I. Think of it about think about. This is a new convention that the compiler like by not only the char compiler on earth, but I've sharp is planning on honoring them as well, so I. Think of them.

A

As the generic don't add, metadata feature I. Don't it's not a runtime aware feature, but it's a it's a you know shared convention. If you will know we could put them elsewhere, I just don't know where l2 it would be right. I mean how many board up extension methods, which has other problems, because now, when you have extension, methods is to decide which types they go on and then the other question really is well I. Make them virtual partially because of the way attributes are currently represented in the collection, which is not that great.

A

So if you first know but have a reflection, water implement all the metadata. You can answer these questions much much more cheaply than if you do admire a long reflection, api's, and so the idea was yeah depending on how the model is implemented. You can you can have a more efficient representation for that I. Think the bigger problem for these API is which is kind of Woodyard. That is, the current design.

A

Doesn't really like I make this statement that I don't think at the time the product has the more general case, which is the ienumerable of string question mark. So how would you know how to be in our string? Is a string crushing market.

G

You know because.

A

It's tempting to put this on tight, but we can't pull it on type. We have to effectively give you another way to traverse the generic like composition and then fish, then data out, which I think would be a new top-level. Try you basically like say you know you would start on a particular designator like a feeling for property in phone. You would basically say give me your custom attributes and then, as you are walking, if your unfolding, the types basically know where we're in the array we are, we can give you that information.

C

Yeah we could, if we wanted to not even put this functionality under system reflection, we could put it under compiler services at the long table or what about reflection.

H

A

I think compiler servers will be bad because they that namespace is meant to be only used by the compiler. Those are not meant by use of the compiler I'd also mention people that, like EF they're, just want to consume what to compile it did so they are like they're like reflection, API, it's but I, think they I. Think component service would be bad because now you're importing in in space where 80% of them, you should never look at it.

A

But, like you know the async state machine or the other machine ability, never yeah back to India.

C

But I mean the argument could be made that because the actual runtime itself isn't enforcing any of this, it's not actually part of the type system. It's really something meant for compiler usage in.

E

Compiler services there are like a number of helper methods that are, you know, meant for a quick rocket scientist. This API is gonna, be used by kind of people, dragon egg yolk all the other pie, they're.

H

E

Meant to be used by other frameworks, yeah.

C

E

Meant to be used by people inspecting code, but building these like in place. It's.

H

The same people who would be inspecting things like unmanaged all.

E

H

That, in which case, I think compiler services or maybe reflection metadata, the.

G

H

The case of you're not necessarily doing standard reflection, stuff you're, really just reflecting over the metadata for the I, don't see how this differently.

A

No little section, though, like to me this is it's nothing.

H

To do with the type system we.

A

Have a slightly better.

H

To reflect certain reflection.

A

Like, for example, default info or sorry for metadata because it happens represented in metadata, but slots are not part of the type system. Realistically, it's just like it's just did it's just it like from a user standpoint, is the most convenient way to acquire that information, I, think I, don't think compiler service. What people would expect a metadata? Maybe if you, if you use but I, think metadata is also fairly low-level, so I'm not sure. That's necessarily the right one using but yeah yeah.

E

It's like another angle, and it's like you know they did the decoder for this, like it's super complex and if you want to make it fast, it needs the cash lot of stuff, yeah yeah, so I think that the kind of the fun way to do this would be to act like you know, no ability to code object that you instantiate and then you ask question people with no abilities.

G

E

Is entity- and you know it director- knew something and the catch lot of stuff and along the line.

C

You even actually commented at the bottom of the issue that maybe MBC and EF should just have a decoder like.

E

See if it works for them, it would be the thing to stop they tightly like you know, let them build on and see. You know like what, but.

D

That's that's what I.

C

Was gonna suggest as well is given where we are in the cycle in the fact that we don't even have Tyler yet that implements the metadata scheme. Yeah.

D

C

That fully supports all the attributes.

D

Were barely rolled this out across core live and we're about to ship, you know preview, seven, which is meant to be the end of API. Changes seems like we should if we want to build something great, but let's just put it in a source only like a dot CS file that MVC.

C

Could consume that yeah as a private thing? Don't even worry about API shape, it's whatever they want it to be, and then come net five or the support is stable. More of the framework has no ability and attributes. The compiler is stable with what it generates and we can revisit the API shape based on the leads and the availability at the time. So I know that Steve's, the steve hoarder, is not in the room right now.

B

But do you suppose.

C

That the jason d serializer would actually use such a decoder ring. If we have it.

H

I think I just think that if we do I think that not putting in the products the right decision I would like to make sure that if both EF and NB C and F sharp are all going to be needing to use this, for you know the five Oh time frame, we.

G

H

Make sure we get like a coordinated project that all of them will come together, so we don't have three different implementations that we have to I. Think.

A

The CSL want a better idea, like I mean as a starting point. This gives us also I think some way to test what the scenarios actually are. Yeah, and one thing that we often also find is that when you actually drill into them, the scenarios are not exactly the same, and.

E

Also, you know, I used touched on that no deflection, API stood that exist today to access country. Customary are not exactly. You know, super fast now, I think that's something that should be fixed except like, if you say, okay, you know like we have like these ideas, but everybody needs to implement their own would make it actually fast I. Never it what's the point right there.

G

Are some of them? You.

E

Know they're, close I think we'll get out of saying so I think it's important for the implementations to be on top of the base set of five tomorrow. Okay,.

C

All also just shoot off a message to Steve harder offline and just see, if maybe we have another consumer of a proposed decoder ring just to get more coverage on I. Don't think we want to free up kind of I will assert okay, okay, mr. Schulman I, like the ha we do not have time for more features in the serializer in 300. Okay, this is not ready. We do not want this for three M sure I will.

D

Also add- and this might be, the pessimist in me: I get a little nervous about components, making runtime decisions based on these null ability, annotations, which, while we've tried to make correct a I'm, 100% sure we're gonna bugs in the end, oceans that we have, and there are places where things have been fudged a little bit like we're. You know. Well, we we don't think it's gonna return null, but at its virtual who knows, and so making runtime decisions, especially in a serializer, seems dangerous.

H

Yeah I think, realistically, what this would be used for is things like link expressions where people want to provide additional warnings towards the expressions that you're building like in the context of analyzers, rather than hopefully, rather than them actually like, preventing you from doing something now, I think it medicine is out, but.

E

You like it, keep it works or doesn't it would like I think if I don't look like that, they would actually change what the thing is say like that's based on annotations. Thank you. Yeah.

A

I think they're, you think frame you seen EF like I, hear what Steven is saying, but I think most of the scenarios that I can think of an MVC nef would be customer data types, not ours right, so whether we get the annotations right, it's largely irrelevant in that, but I think there is a there's, a good question of like what's the bar for runtime features and how do we?

A

How do we square our statement that you want to be able to churn the annotations in the framework over the next version until 500 public posts 5-volt? Even they do not get everything in Oh, giving them Babel add a lot more annotations in the final time frame, probably need more time to make them as well.

A

So most of the time you think of these annotations as compiled time breaks right, but as soon as you have systems that reason about this metadata at runtime, then even if it's mostly customer data code, I don't think you can always. You know describe that boundary well enough and suddenly we have to hit there breaking changes that affect runtime state right and that that might be a good cost to say. Maybe we shouldn't do any features until we have sufficient confidence that the notations are correct.

A

We're also give us more time to make the teacher.

B

If we had another, six months before, we were walking down.

C

And we were already where we are with no ability, we might have a better state, but given, given that it's been effectively.

B

Changing day by day, you know, I just don't think we know enough to make yeah.

A

I mean given giving them feedback, they got off line already, like I, can't assume that we will not do it now, but it's good to have that list. I think it's one of these is our one on one with you.

A

A

A

So hunter biology almost do people care about the generalized feature here, which is like exposing dynamic and couple names as well as anybody think that's important, but it's kind of the same problem. If you think about how the customer views are encoded, you guys have to block the signature and find the index in the array and that's kind of the same pattern on there for another Bowl as it is for dynamic, as it is for couple names, I think.

H

It's one of those things where we should be exposing it somewhere because there's other languages that need it not just even Microsoft languages, but there's community owned languages where they want to be able to interact with the features and there's link expressions and things like that where you want to be able to use the better names to when you're, creating your expressions and still have the map up. Yada-Yada I think it's for something like it may be. C sharp, but C sharp, so big that it just becomes like the de facto standard, and you.

C

Know and I could also imagine in MVC, especially you have a method that returns a value tuple and you just want to have that thing. Jason serialized, across the wire so being able to pull the names out would be convenient.

C

Right now, the way you have to do it is by returning an object.

A

Makes it alright I give it more thought and then whatever we do, ready foot pulses wheel, but.

B

That part I was pretty set in stone right, like pulling names out of people's yeah that won't this country.

A

Is done like the the it's just that the problem is basically the same kind of thing where the attribute is not on the tribes? It's basically on a different thing. You have to call that information. Somehow, no, it's not go straight forward to build an API, the other and.

H

With both the tuples and the normal features, they're making optimization so they can emit fewer attributes and compress the data and.

G

H

It just becomes like you have to go, read the c-sharp spec to be able to know how to walk this properly and it could change from version to version and.

F

Only there man why.

H

I think they're allowed to compress the data more as long as it's still backwards, compatible right.

A

But sure that one yes but like I mean I talked with Jared about it like they think that once they have it, they have it. They we're not going to touch it, because it's almost impossible to reason about that. Once your like. Okay, if the feature is basically so that you can have different heuristics and how you apply the compression thing, but but the actual mechanics I read it wouldn't change it would just it would just shuffle the attributes around and how it's being emitted so I think that's probably not the biggest concern.

A

You have it's more interesting to see like what other attributes you will add in the future that could influence that decision making and that one I can totally see that we add more attributes, because then you already run into cases in the review where, where all they do, is we have one expressive enough? So that's the question: how much do we care all right? So then Steve just joined so I think they made done with this one. But I will just move this out of three Oh: remove the blocking partner because can unblock them differently.

A

A

A

With alright see, buddy wouldn't start.

G

Okay, so this is I think, third time through this and you can kind of read some the notes from previous cycle, but but basically we met offline as well and I. Think the design is pretty close. Some of the naming you know was up in the air, so there is a summary naming done. This is the last review, but in general on the API is the same, except the read and write the read method now is now try read and the write is not try right.

G

Oh it's just read and write and along with that on the read method, then simply returns on the type directly. Instead of you know an out parameter.

G

um There's a few open issues I'd like to discuss, but if anybody has any comments to start off the.

C

Comments on what we're seeing on the screen right now, we're probably us about the scenario or what.

G

Anything I guess before I talk about some of the open issues, I'm guessing.

H

G

That I would like feedback on I'm.

H

Guessing you guys already talked and decided on keeping the create converter method on Jason converter rather than having a separate factory.

G

Well, it is on.

I

A separate base class no I mean it was before on behalf of the factory on the screen. You've got create converter on Jayson converter.

H

Attribute, oh okay,.

G

um No I guess that's the same. Well, I thought you're, referring to the run time on the design time attributed her did it. This basically allows you to create a custom attribute and add some properties to your custom attribute and then pass those on to the converter. That's all it really does um yeah. We could move this off and put it somewhere else, but I mean the converter. Attribute itself needs to be able to do this in some way. Oh okay,.

I

I see I I see how it works here. I think this one makes.

B

Sense that we had discussed.

C

Last time, potentially making this method public and sort of protected did we decide against having we agree you convert around? That is what was the reasoning. The reason for that is no one aside from the Jason serializer itself can call it like if you were, if you were creating, if he were subclass in Jason converter attribute. How do you test him.

C

You would have to define your own public access. Err on the pomodoro type, I mean you were five to calm it or you know, I mean you. You tried using it or yeah.

D

C

No now what we have here is an attribute not simply that contains metadata, but an attribute that contains logic, that's very, very specific to one particular type, the only type that can call into it, but not the one. That's not generally about a Louise. You know, I mean.

A

The way it would test it, though I, don't think it would test it at that level and we're probably configured to see it leather and then compare the inputs and outputs. What I expect.

B

I would probably not test individually. That's not a good unit test, because now you're testing, the entire stack all.

C

The way up and down, rather than just a component that you world so.

J

What are your estimate? Welcome your PA problems.

K

They get public.

J

Instead of apartment, yeah, Oh.

C

Azim, the other scenario we came up with was, if I'm, creating Jason serializer to write, am I going to be able to honor this exact same attribute? The answer is No.

D

G

Okay, I mean I'm supplying with that idea. It's a.

B

Pretty totally only.

I

G

I, don't really buy so much but ability for somebody else to reuse this I.

F

G

C

Or even if, even if I'm, not creating my own serializer, that say that I'm I mean the serializer has virtual methods on it. Right, like the serializer, has accessibility points. If I fix, if I use one of those extensibility points to extend the serializer, I need to be able to call the same api s and discovery wiser itself. What a call yeah.

K

So why does this mean forget it in our life of that, because.

C

How outside of Pearson converter attribute and how do I call it like if I'm, if I'm overriding a method in the Jason serializer itself, I don't have access to this method because I don't have visibility into it. Yeah.

L

You'd have to create around we'd have to depend on a drive from this attribute we're good to us. Here's what I.

H

Did can you override it as protective eternal if.

J

The gap Texas I believe you I actually I.

C

Don't know but eat even then like, even if you override it in a derived class, you're derived class, doesn't have access to call this method in some other drive class. Well,.

H

I mean if so, if it's protected here, you can override it as protective internal yeah, which I think you can do. But all chatter.

C

H

Assume you pay for it.

C

H

You could call it from within the same assembly. You could only call your very particular subclass for within the same assembly right, but it's virtual, so you would either end up calling the cracked overload or.

B

You would have to cast the Jason converter attribute to my custom attribute before you can call it right.

A

B

Might fail at one time we honestly I, think in all.

A

And it doesn't bias anything to make it protected like as far as we're concerned, it's a it's a public API and they behave to reason about it's an extension point and what they make it protected or public does not limit our like support cost in any meaningful fashion. It just makes it slightly harder to be able to actually test their stuff. You.

K

Cannot age access, modifiers right, a project.

H

What an eyesore! No! Thank you! So you have to create a wrapper method that calls anymore what you could do it.

G

Was proposed yeah making a.

H

Public probably sees best in the worst cases. Someone creates an extra converter that they can't really do anything with, except for manually register.

M

Okay, I guess I'll make that change. Do we want to move on to the casein converter? Just one last thing for accurate progress. We are happy with being about the class instructor and.

F

Obviously much goes wrong. You, yes, do we not want events to be convertible in any way believe who that deficient know.

H

What they, what do you mean because he'll that's an event, I mean technically. If you have a property, it could be exposing a delegate and there's really no difference from serializing a delegate in serializing a event other.

G

I didn't do it, neither of them.

H

Are supported, yeah, so well, I mean this is a converter, so you can manually serialize it yeah they're in there are ways you could do it. Even if it's a bad, you can I, don't know if we would want to support them over me yeah, but we could always add it later.

A

I mean events seem something if you're going to add it begin added, but that could seem it's not something you should support off. Yeah are the books, because we could always add doll feel in the future too. Yeah I think you feel is probably way more like and hit hit that.

B

The movements yeah- we don't make you see this anyway see you were wrong.

J

Diversity came.

G

Apart, oh yeah, I'm, sorry. What did you say? Oh my.

C

You wanted to continue a ticket yeah.

G

I mean it was broke down. I just keep moving forward. I guess I took that note: I'll change it from protected to public.

G

Okay, so I'm Jason, convertor um I, think I added the private are tainted from Hecht internal to private internal. So we don't expect anybody to derive from this directly right now. Do you mean probably otherwise it's the same.

A

Yeah I think you mean private protected. There's no such thing as private internal I mean it does look like a public API. No, it just means it's basically not visible from the outside Oh.

C

Protected internal means it is visible outside me, pretty little whatever, like we just.

B

Don't wanted to show up in the.

C

B

Basically, right, yeah, private versus private protected is that it's not even yeah yeah brother. It.

J

G

In the rest, I didn't want, you cannot extend this.

J

G

For speed- oh sorry, yeah um I just put this here to make sure that we realize there's.

M

No public, you know constructor for.

G

M

So, and you have to that's what a class like this, both private and internal know.

A

The exes, when I first called private protected, which is basically internal and protected them well,.

H

It's not internal and protected. That's protected internal. It's.

A

Right, it's irrelevant.

J

H

A

Doesn't matter basically there's no public constructor, so basically you have to derive from what is that Jason converter of T right? That's the idea.

A

Which Basin has a protective constructor factor? The internal.

A

A

The one change you made from last time is that Jason convert effect we know, is also adjacent converters. There correct well.

G

Iii was a typo from last time. All of the samples had it derived from that oh I see yeah, we were, we were playing with the API, um it's um offline discussion and I never changed it back, but no, it is the DOS drive from that. The idea of having a common base class Basin converter is that there will be more than one type of converter here, there's to concur or not to two different kinds of converters: the factory and then the of T converters, but I.

G

Think in the future there will be more than two and idea is to have one list containing multiple types of converters that you can arrange and add them a different order. So that's why it derives from the same base class.

H

If we're willing to call it if we're gonna make it inherit from the base, should we rename create inverter to something like get converter, that way, it's more clear that you can return itself you're, not expected to necessarily return a new instance yeah.

G

That's that was some feedback actually offline feedback and further thinking on this is that it did toggle from create get now back to create, because the intent is that the framework will automatically cache for you if you've just bought. Yet it kind of seems like that. The type itself this would happen. I mean I'm flying both ways, but the argument was brought up. That create is a little more correct and the terms of you know how the framework called automatically cache I.

H

I think the one thing the one pushback I would have is just seeing the word create by default. I would expect you to expect me to return a new instance rather than potentially allowing myself to return itself, um which.

A

I think is kind of what Steve is getting. Is I don't buy it? You don't buy yourself much by doing that, because the idea is that the framework will do the caching at the call sign. You should not do any caching yourself so.

H

You should always return a new it. You should probably always run in a new instance and that's.

G

When returning self doesn't make any sense for this particular converter,.

G

Because it'd be recursive, we're saying hey, the idea is that you're gonna give us converter for this type, and- and you didn't you return yourself.

A

Stiva, how do you use that guy that I give you back so what happens if I give you back? Basically another Jason convert a factory. Do you blow up or do you then call create convert on that guy as well I'm.

G

Pretty sure I don't have to talk doc this that there's a billet operation. So basically you have to.

A

Make to basically return an instance of Jason convert of T right. Yes,.

G

And and if it's not compatible on with the G, then another ability, not the other operation will be thrown. So it's not covariant our contravariant at all.

A

Make sense because you yeah I'm making.

G

I love dog just make sure the right exceptions.

K

There's less your John additional on oft got. They.

A

Just kinda expressed that that's the problem, the closest.

G

I'll update the summary then to say that as well in the future, maybe could return some other type of converter. But since s of T is the only murder.

M

Today, I might as well just dock it like that. Are we happy with the Jason facto murder fact he hasn't named I think he missed.

K

The SD listed a few I'll date as if you hate this one, oh yeah, less I had a binder I think originally had.

G

Factory then change of binder and then and then I'm. You know what I didn't like factory, but it is a factory pattern and I'm just call it what it.

I

Is you know, I mean the names that you're listed there.

A

There would be all much worse in my opinion, but I mean the average Joe gets what a factory does yeah I, don't think the average understands the term binder. Like sure gate is like mean you could I mean unless you do a globalization expert I. Don't think that means anything to you and then I'm always gonna sounds more like it handles dynamic, which I don't think is either the right term, so yeah I think I mean in fact I'm exactly as I get. Why did you know it's it's supposed to create instances right and.

K

Also has the benefit of it being a suffix. You.

A

K

The other ones have it's in fixed, which makes it hard to compare Jessica water, and this thing yeah.

A

I mean the hierarchy is a bit on the funky side with Jason convertor, but I also don't have a better alternative, because I think for the people that just register them calling those guys converters makes perfect sense, yeah and the people that are extending them here. For them it's a bit funky because the converters were actually converter, but I also don't have any other naming suggestions. That would be better.

H

Well, I think the other suggestion was make them clearly distinct types and then abstract away the difference internally. That way, you don't have to expose the inheritance to the user.

A

Yeah but but but see, that's the thing right, I think so the it's not about internal versus public. It's more like on the Jason, solid, Asian options. You have a bunch of converters that you register right, so the user, the registers, the converter, they don't care what these guys do to implement themselves, but never want of you like whether it's a factory alone effect to its implementation. Detail of that converter right.

H

But so I know so what I'm saying was the other proposal was basically, you have registers to murder and register factory. If you register converter gets to add it direct to the list. If you register factory, then internally, you can have a converter that does the inheritance chain and wraps the factory. That way you don't have to expose to the user. No I get that what I'm saying.

A

Is that your bits of the implementation there's disagreement on like who you're shielding from this right, because they think they do well? The current design is that the person that just does the registration of the converters- they don't have to know whether the converter itself is, is effectively or not right. They just register the converter, I.

H

Mean you probably shouldn't be registering the converter that you don't little boy like you probably don't want to register some arbitrary converter as like an apple or library author. You probably either want the serialization library to do it through the attributes or you want to be doing it through some well described mechanism that you've created your own. You probably shouldn't be taking a random thing from external, but.

A

Wouldn't be invented, but I mean you would totally you know. I would totally create, but to author or to have to ever.

K

A

About how things compose right, I'd say: I'm the I'm, the edger library and let's say the storage depends on some other thing, with Ezra fubar right and as your fubar has converters for their types as a storage has converter for their types. Well, the the layer that I actually see lenses both has to register both of them right. So now I mean yeah. You would not like Ren dojo would not create another Grendel thing and then just fill it in there.

A

But logically speaking like if you're the author of the time- and you were the author of the civilization Hank, that makes perfect sense so me to register your converter for your time or your dependencies yeah, because otherwise like otherwise. That means anybody who serialize, as always, has to author everything, which is defeating the point right now. I.

G

Think a good scenario, for that would be some users, a lot of users like the Jason net semantics of trying to guess when we're deserializing things like hints and Long's and decimals. Basically, they wanted to be either deserialized as the number or a string the day. We don't do that. We only support a number and Jason, so I assume pretty quickly. Somebody's going to create a bunch of converters are one big converter. That knows how to do that, and it'll probably share right people hopefully use it quite often.

A

You're, looking at the design, I mean like an elaborate courier, but it looks much much cleaner than what we looked at last.

A

So my only question is, if you scroll down a little bit to them the actual one of our time. So last time we talked a little bit about the concerns with struct.

A

And I think some suggestion was to take them as raft.

G

Yeah, so that is I switched not having an all parameter, just returned that it will course just return the T right now, but.

G

I, don't know if we're gonna get gang anything but a normal truck scenario. Yeah.

H

I think I think if that's a perk concern for the read here, then we you could do that as a data optimization where it doesn't do a copy for the output buffer and for the input one.

H

That one's a bit harder because Davi said you have to shadow copy input. If it's too big the.

A

Only thing I'm trying to get the sector that, given that this is the only extension point behalf yeah, but is the person somewhat like we're? Also there's nothing they can do like. There's no fallback, for you know, just need what the meter yourself and with the instance, because they need the only way you can actually get to the instances by basically arriving from these things, you already get the t's or.

K

What is that? What is the concern bits? Jobs did.

A

You I think I, don't know Africa, who Borya, but in the very first place that we talked about this somebody said well. If what, if what, if I'm using, is struck instructors large, okay? Well, he comes basically when you call right yeah. They basically copied.

B

Instructor over, but how? What how large realistically are? These drops going I see.

A

I'm, not I'm, not saying I'm they're, saying I mean it seems like that was a concern. I mean I'm, okay, with deliberately saying we thought about it. We don't think it's a concern, so it's good I mean they think it's.

G

A

G

A best practices that they shouldn't be large, yeah.

H

Well, I mean you say that, but once you get in ml, you're gonna have like the ladies, like matrices, which are potentially large trucks, even even in the common case of just like graphics. You have a matrix 4 by 4, which is 16, floats sword and a struct and you're not going to want to incur the cost of the copy. Every time I mean cutting the only the only thing that can really fix. That is exposure right and right. That takes a rat team and then.

A

We, the rest, you are in right, would water so knows them. Yeah I mean in has other problems right now, where, if the structure is not largest know you make it twice as expensive to get you know. Four bytes across the method I mean there's breath in general right and.

G

There's a that's, not standard right, the in multiplier, not that's thing.

I

H

C-Sharp 7 3, so technically it's framework as well I, don't.

A

Even think what goes in representative doesn't require so ref.

H

Out in in are all under the covers a managed by reference, which are all the same type, which is why you can't overload between them and then the c-sharp compiler emits a additional attribute, namely out and in which are the system runtime interrupt service after needs to do the differentiation, and so.

A

Basically, in it's just meet only you Oh.

H

Sort, we don't, we yeah.

A

H

Is a by ref that has the in attribute and an additional read-only attribute, and then out is a by ref that has the out attribute by any of the attributes new or they know that what the remain only one is new. But it's one of the magic attributes that the compiler emits if it can't find it in the first work. So.

A

Technically speaking of this works everywhere, yeah.

H

Yeah, and in and out had the nerve.

C

Zones like don't have one.

F

H

F

It's 73, it's supported on for framework. What would initially, what do we do if you were to make this in? It just makes it harder to yeah.

H

K

H

If you're serializing, something that's a class yeah first time, you have a double indirection on okay yeah, rather than single interaction. Oh.

A

This drug did small, writes prospectus four bytes, no you're, calling it a baby yeah.

K

But I would be surprised.

A

K

You're using a small struck, four there's no possible more views, an area no.

A

Are you saying like it's for its for every T right? If you're passing the string, you pass in a pointer to a pointer to the actual day, yeah.

K

I get the classic you spawn yeah. Would you why would you ever want posthumous, more instructors.

C

Actually tenner, they have a good example about earlier, where you want to custom, serialize, I, think, float and double to support, not a number. He was wrapping in a know like your ear. Actually, you have a chaise, longue murder.

K

G

Just to clarify, though honoree you know you are construction, it so there's no yeah.

I

G

So we're just talking about adding an in modifier and a key billing you for a yeah which.

A

Scene is actually have another problem, so yeah I think we talked about this. In other cases we know trucks are kind of odd, isn't even there. There was a lot of contention, whether that actually makes things better or worse. It's.

H

Really like, unless you've got an abnormally large drop, which you really shouldn't have anyways yeah, then you're probably not going to hit this, but.

C

You can work around the, but in your example like you, you have them. You were working with ml data like matrices graphic stuff, like that you could work around that by having a JSON converter of containing object and then inside of that and just serialize everything very efficiently.

J

C

You yeah, assuming the containing object as a classical. If I would hope it would be right.

H

You still have the costume of copying the data into the class potential. Well.

C

I assume that's where the data which was live normally I'm.

G

Gonna have a struct with an object, I mean in a box, but you had also get your on the coffee that way well.

H

I mean if you're boxing you're incurring the cost of copy anyways, in which case it's no worse than it is calling the method yeah.

A

I mean if you talk about fur from the Jason light, would be mostly about allocations. I think, because, given that you're about to send public data over the wire I'm, not sure that copies of like eight to twenty bytes will actually show up. Thank.

C

You also aren't there other. There are other costs involved here, like if I made this in T in the matrix case. This was you know in of a matrix of sixteen floats. The implementation either needs to copy all of those. Two local registers whatever or every access to every field is gonna, be a an indirection. That's on optimizable I mean you have that for a regular class anyway.

C

Okay, every access to the fields effectively an indirection crew of this footer right, but we're talking about Struck's we're talking about a trade-off between us, we're just having it on the stack versus adding all those interactions. Okay, that's right, but if it's only serializing properties, I, don't think you can take graphic property unless the property was itself right. Returning, so once we say it's not doing fields, then this is mostly yeah.

C

Certainly he is just.

K

A third limitation: it's not something! No.

C

But what Jeremy's saying is the actual implementation is going to have to be. The caller makes a copy of the data before invoking the right now, because there's no field to access there's nothing to get a rap to.

C

You have to call the property get or make a copy of it into. It makes.

A

You really concentrate for a hike in the authority of cases. You will have properties and even if we make even if we love P long term, probably the Ambassador tables will not be filled right and.

H

Then the Jason library would have to do checks for like if this is a rapper turning property and thinks that which are probably going to be more expensive than the copy anyways right. Oh yeah, it.

G

Is possible to add another type of converter to deal with this I mean the framework could just switch on the different types of converters and I and I. Think like I said earlier, we would have I want to create a different type of converter, things like collections and poco types just basically expose of whatever the framework does in the future. Not for this release, so I mean if we think this is fine for v1 and and but there's an optimization, and we don't want to add the in modifier because it causes other problems right.

G

That's what I'm hearing right, then you know we could add another computer converter in the future, or maybe we can add another right method here and the framework could try to figure out which one to call well.

C

I think your I think your trade-off is buying just at it in the future. You know once we receive feedback hey. This is a shape. I'd like you to have as right now we're just kind of speculating as to what people might need, and it's not going to be a breaking change, to introduce any way of doing this, and let then let folks like the azure SDK team figure out which one to use.

G

Okay, I'm good with that. So if I don't hear anything else, what it says you you're on the screen, one of the things I want an input on and ask those card talking to me right before this. Here are these four exceptions, because we we went away from the Tri read that returns a bool to have the inverter or self throw exceptions which are going to be caught and then thrown as a nice jason exception say something like unable to convert value.

G

Here's the path- and you know the reader position and all of that and I have four exceptions here. Two of them are obvious: I think one is format exception. The reader throws us quite a bit and it's just convenient exception to throw in the Jason's. Not what you expect. Overflow exception is common. When calling parse, we don't really do this internally, maybe for the Enuma converter, but it you know if somebody's doing it in converter and they call parse instead of try parsed and you know this would be thrown.

G

The other two I think are debatable whether you know this is a mistake on the user side and should only to chew the power mod, but I'm definitely open here, for you know, are we should discuss these.

I

Was throwing argument exception.

G

I believe in valid argument in all of those um the the reader can throw in certain cases if you misuse it, but that's usually a misuse.

K

Case so it's usually the I mean I've. Seen the writer throw it I mean the matter, can't just throw it I, don't know why I read over, throw it the.

C

Argument exception is a usage problem so that you should not intercept yeah.

L

C

That leak is there bug format exception, is they called get do it and it wasn't to do it valid operation exception? Is they call it do it and it was a string and I? Don't know why we would ever want overflow exception. Ii like these seem like they're just customer overflow exception will be something like I, think math.abs, and then you pass it in 32-bit value or.

G

If in 32 cars, you know somebody trying to write a custom encumber so and that's you try parts in that case, yeah I mean it goes back to the same argument. We did. The poor people might not use the try, outlets and I.

C

Mean the formal exception is only because the reader has a gate, gooood method that can throw a format exception. The reader can't ever throw overflow exception based I.

K

So the question is because do we only get exceptions with the reader and writer throw yes? What should we should? We do the addition to using arguments. After all, perception that is like for more general purposes, people who implement converters? Oh, maybe the execute.

A

Later Combinator right, they're.

K

Not getting the data by manually extracting bytes from the video right right, but you could argue like this point. This point is more like so I am NOT in your reader API I'm, just using how many I really am convert, I'm writing an enum conversion and I just call the frameworks intercourse on lead or values back in dirt. First does too, even though this is not. This is not about. You know just.

A

Say Wiener get get in defectively and then use that to.

K

Determine what what to do so, one example is, if you want to support strings like.

L

A coated integer, we don't read numeric string, it's really really. They send them well.

H

Why can't you? Why can't the reader just do if token type is string, we buy cars, we've.

L

Said we don't want to do think we don't do that. We.

C

Don't coerce the time no.

G

No same bonus, I'm writing in converter. Right I mean that I mean yes. So, as I said, do we all need to worry about exceptions we throw internally or we want to try to help the user out in some common scenarios, because.

A

They're on me to me the thing that we should make sure because I think the most common thing is: you have you're composing your stuff over the reader right so like I. Think, if I call methods on the reader that should just propagate anything I do custom. I would be okay if the user has to do code, because that's kind of I mean that's kind of sensible.

A

You don't expect like in dot parse to to propagate as a JSON exception right, because it clearly it's not a JSON API right, but if I call things of the video, it seems very way that we would call it. You know you know catch the exception and rub that in adjacent either exception.

A

Let's I think that kind of makes sense right so I'll give an exceptional generally agree with Jeremy, like your code is buggy like there's nothing that, like it's, not a it's, not a problem, and the payload is the way you you go to your converter. All right, embedded operation was the thing that was unfortunate, based on the way our video works, but I think the I think a gonna exception. We should definitely not.

K

Catch so to clarify arguments for my exception and in that operation, after other two exception to the reader, does throw Jerusalem or Mac and valid okay, so yeah definitely catch. So you can know for sure. Okay now is in other realities is the argument and overflow, for example. Let's not do it because you.

C

You wanna do so right so like this is come sort of comes down to what's the what's the code, you have to write and I think that if somebody is just if they're doing, you know they're doing this because they need custom logic on reading the property names herbs or they have weird stuff that one, a previous value is going to once a future result on the same payload.

G

C

They have a prefix and now they're moving it together. If they just call Reader API yeah, they, it seems sensible to say they don't need a custom, try catch and then it will be. Oh, you did Jason E stop. This is a Jason eat exception at the moment that they write their own code to handle things yeah. They have to turn it into adjacent exception, so try catch free throws Jason exception. If they want everything out of their converter.

C

To look the same, they can write that it goes against guidelines to catch all exception types, but they can do the normalization, and so it just comes down to there's, there's easy converters and then there's hard converters, and it's just like everything else that we ever have in the framework. Yeah easy ways are really easy and hard ways are uglier. So.

K

This is a hypothetical, but what happens if, in the future, the reader at api's or exception types that are not covered in this list would be so the guidance is or the documentation would be read only catches, exceptions and the reader throws whatever the end of me, maybe being yeah.

A

But they can't point to the problems like I find it kind of. Unfortunately, the reader throws phone except for mode of operation inspection. It makes sense if you only consider the reader in his isolation, but it falls apart when you consider the reader being a building block. Father Jason, it.

C

Shows the other option, which is weird because now changes the code with somebody right there is. We have an internal, an internal value on the reader that changes it from throwing and valid operation exception to the stoic Jason exception that the see realize your puts it in that mode before when passing it back in these callbacks.

A

It doesn't even have to be internally, you could actually make that a public, and you could make it public because it minutes basically would be the I use inside of a Jason parsley thing anyway.

C

But we could say that we're going to change what the reader does and what the reader throws. If we're in inside the serialism. Would you consider just making the reader always to review some exceptions and not any of these four? So if you're, using the reader in valid operation exception is the right exactly I'm, sorry, yeah, so the only time it makes sense to change what it's throwing is when it's being used inside some other well.

J

I mean we: could we.

C

Could always fudge that, though, to make scenarios more usable by people and it's just God I'm, just the right exception, or you have called this method in this is not a method you can call given the state of the subject it is I have yeah so, and another thing you can do is when your any any exception, that's thrown by the Jason reader. There is a property bag. On the exception object, you can always shove a value and they're saying this.

C

Exception is thrown by the river and the Jason serializer can catch all exceptions, inspect that and if it doesn't see it just breathe through otherwise rapidly. Maybe it's better that way, you don't have that way. You don't have to special case any of these types.

A

Actually, that's a really clean design, because also means you don't need magic format, exceptions flown by other code that it.

C

Mean it means any code that literally just throws one of these four or any other exception, does not get swallowed by the serializer I see oh yeah yeah.

A

Actually I like that, because then it also means you just have a singular exception. Filter for all exceptions. You just say the filter is: is the jason source c set in the dictionary? And then you, then you just keep that otherwise, you just where's the.

J

Exceptions on data with the exception, though they don't know the other- it's just properly done. Yes,.

G

It actually public.

J

Virtual light dictionary data yeah, you can just live.

C

J

Think it like used.

G

Rd sterilization, write binary part. Sorry, oh I mean that's the same property big just used during sterilization and Eastern realization, fixations yeah.

D

G

J

C

There for yeah, it's public, you could you could shove it. You know. Jason reader exception people, true Internet, and then yes, this could do a catch exception where there, when he died, Dana dot try to get value. You know Jason reader template, ideally the data, so data is just like their canary, but ideally the key is a string and the value is a primitive. So in France, whatever one.

G

Of the issues today is that the the path property on Jason exception, Jason path- very you know handy when debugging is not available on the reader today, before performance reasons, I'm gonna serve sterilizer calculates it instead. Okay on that, would that wouldn't be available to the user, trying to throw their own exception.

G

If we disallow them, you know now.

C

But if you document that, if they assert, you know Jason exception through in the data property of any exception, that's being thrown that that it will rewrap it in a Jason serialization exception. Well,.

G

They could also just.

C

Throw a trace an exception and read the the current marker off the reader bright. That informations are no, not the popping from it doesn't know.

G

C

He knows what the token is. It doesn't got there, but yeah we make it a be like presumably you're already catching the other jason reader exception. So if it just do it empty when you've built the path on top of it, that's another option they have so we could just special cases like special reversible, but I mean like once once we're doing this metadata thing. We should just yeah that put in the doc said that actually, that sort of and it'll rewrap anything that has that attribute on the data property.

K

Also saw results might be concerned that hag, which is you know the read, and the reader will never to argument section right and therefore the writer does throw an exception. So if you wanted to just have a list or exception to be catch, then be the difference between that argument. Exception is a usage yeah.

C

So you could have.

K

Let's say a poco that is, there's a string property that happens to be more than a 100 megabyte rider throws an exception, so it's not really a. Why is there an argument exception? Because your argument is the thing you can't support, because you're passing out string then to nourish. Do I just write a Pia I wouldn't know about the caller know that up front all of this tree.

B

Is too large a chance to engineer right, I? Think right now it's just documentation. You start my design because the gentleman gardeners you should not throw in validation for things that you cannot be setting to determine whether that's correct.

A

Behavior know you can statically determine that by reading the dogs well, no, but how would I write code I, don't like how would I change my code to handle that case? If.

C

String length is greater than what the doc told me the maximum size with us. It's.

B

C

Passing strings of several hundred things.

A

Like if they expose the content as a public API or something right or that mean then in decades, I can actually write the code right, in which case it would be okay, but yeah. You could could easily imagine with somebody operation exception in that case, but it's the same like it's basically dynamic property of the thing you're stating in the right eye, like I'm.

A

An exception is usually for cases where you know you pass in three Inns and think they have a certain relationship to each other that you that you violated or something right, you're not like this is not like. The data is invalid or anything like it's. It's like yo wait, I, don't support gigabytes of data. All right, hey by me, like I, mean I think in general, like by the way, we could also use exception, dot source, because it also seems like it's exactly. For that reason, it's a string. Yes, the.

K

Extra came from well.

A

It's it's I think the Depot property is the type that throws it operated by the one-time, I think I'm. Sorry, the assembly name of the of the call side usually, but you can totally create that and set that wherever you want, and you could use that as well or.

B

At all so innocent, you can't.

J

Be metered pull them.

A

Yeah then you just come grab that at.

C

The reception when, where sources.

B

I bump utf-8 Jason, we turn up holding.

C

So we have effect on call stacks, they're thinking that I said, but.

J

It doesn't involve cost master, yeah.

F

L

A big date, a bi that that once the island, you have to do, decimals yeah I've never played with those properties, on exception.

B

But I'm pretty sure they were edited for wall. That's the same reason: the targets light could be correct.

C

For the yourself and what you became targets like it's, basically, the method base of through the exception, yeah I, didn't you'd, have to check I mean you could ask if the target sites declaring type is Jason reader, but then users I mean. If we want to say we don't want users to also opt into it, but there's no data collection, but.

A

That's also dangerous, because the question is now: how do you construct the exception right because it basically subjective over the full statement? No card? Oh and there might be so that's.

M

Always don't offer.

A

C

J

And the case is probably in the right of somewhere no.

C

But if you ask method base, the throne will be throw help or not throw in valid operation exemption. But.

F

The assembly will be correct.

C

Yes, yeah, if you wanted to do a course leave it be a simple level what you would have to do due to things like inlining and such actually exceptions spoken in line. So that's: okay, like.

A

The way you would do it would say the throw helper sets the string to away another.

B

A

You would not like we can otherwise as soon as you type for what that down. At some point, you just break a bunch bunch of your code yeah. It probably will take you forever to find that, because well, everything works until you realize that you eat too many exceptions right.

A

G

If we change, source or target site I mean, are people gonna get confused if they're used to the normal? No.

A

Because I mean logically, the way it would document is, you would just say any exception that occurs from the reader. We conveniently wrapped right.

G

I'm just secular code that might do like a global, try, catch I, don't know an asp net and it dumps it out. You know I'm saying hey this all right.

I

A

I mean source is like if you look at primary exception at some point: I think I did an exception, dialogue or something right dump the source. The source in the in dotnet is usually the assembly name, but there's many components that send it to a custom. Video, like sequel. Does that I think XML? Does it it's basic diagnostic information, for whoever cares about that string is.

K

There concern of in us catching exception that has this set and then we throw an exception. Wouldn't.

A

We throw what you would do is you would you would have a catch end up with a filter, you would say catch exception, if exception dot source equals magic string, and that means you're catching that will not execute. If this thing is once.

K

It is a good and what are you doing in there? You.

C

J

It inside of a.

C

Tracing which I.

J

C

J

C

Yes and that's what that's, what they use being a team wanted and.

K

That would change the source.

C

To be Nancy and I know, the outer exception would have a normal looking exception. The inner exception that it's wrapping stays exactly the same.

K

It's just a wrapped object: okay or the source or the data property, on the exception in the case that would match the type that through it, you guys.

C

Know it was here would be known the outer on the outer one, the one that the serializer saying throwing new yeah, whatever exception, comma E yeah, the outer one would just be normal, oh yeah, it would be its source would say this doesn't act Jason, but remember the same guy understanding with twenty lines of reflection right.

F

This is variance was.

C

Of the the asp net team needed the ability to to basically capture single exception type and say I want this to be an HDTV four hundred instead of an HDTV five program.

C

So the outermost try cash flows and the serializer would do that normalization on there. We have yet.

A

To be the biggest conservative, catching argument, exception or operation exception, I mean format. An overflow is kind of in the parsing area.

A

So I'm I don't care that much, but in an operation, I'm going exception could be Rendon bucks in your code right, but you just the rent from the stream that you shouldn't have, or you call the method that you know you're passing out to or some API that didn't like the nothing and suddenly like the supervisor is eating exceptions, and you have no idea what's going on and then like yeah, if you, if you do a little a final go, there's a bug in my code, yeah I mean.

C

I was a little wary of it, but I like doing okay assessing in framework that does it is the excess launcher.

C

Rewrite source I think that they move the type and the what the X M app model, X app launcher so I think that's divert of that might be click once oh yeah that I have and I think they moved the type out of system deployment. So they, when they throw it, they they overwrite source to say system deployment in another presentation.

K

Framework I said somebody's.

C

K

L

Someone somewhere must be filtering on hill I, mean sequel, exception and or be easy exception also have overriding the source yeah.

K

I wasn't looking for who wrote in cinema set this one about to. You know cuz, it's a publicly. So do we.

B

K

What trade-offs are between using source versus the data, probably where I think.

A

What we said earlier, I think source is just basically that data on the instance versus the the data back is meant for civilization. I. Think, oh, is that something we need to determine here, though,.

B

J

C

To say that it will just it will catch exceptions using a property of the exception instead of okay.

G

Okay, so can I reiterate kind of taking notes here? Okay, so the reader writer will set exception source to some bad, to tell you just in text json or something like that right, but only for those exceptions that we want to catch enough. Misery laser well.

A

Yeah, yes, I would generally say anything that the readers roles that you would expect the sterilizer to catch you mark basically at the throw side, and then everything else like, for example, argument exception when somebody misuse of the reader API is you just don't have an exception without that, because you would not expect this other to to handle that you would just expect to crash at that point.

G

Serializer will catch. Those three throws Jason exception. You know what the inner exception behaved.

I

G

I think the third thing, then, is that the the user code for converters need to make it easy to throw Jason exception today, there's basically one constructor, you know it takes to string the line, number path and byte offset whatever, but III think I need to add two overloads one default with nothing, the second one, a string parameter like the message and and when thrown on by the user. We would catch that INRI, throw and add the path and my number and all that that's unreasonable. If Yuri.

H

Throw you're going to lose the original stack information.

G

Yeah it'll be on the inner I. Guess it's oh crap, yeah, so to wrap.

C

Around and be thrown yeah, so I think it would make sense to to let someone create a I mean either you take the existing Jason exception or you just make an arrive type off with your Jason exception, that's easier to create, which is nice and Jason convergent exception, and then that's only the only thing that ever touches that special would be the serialism.

K

Would we continue to see the continued cat just a special case, Jason exception, aside from the one, after the exception list that is filtered on the source.

K

That's created so right now the decency lies our special case. Edition exceptional catches, it right and then to do the wreath row right and then it has this list of exceptions that we said hey. You don't need to use this list of exception. Just do a catch-all and the exception of source yeah filter when you filter by that will it continue to special case an exception.

K

You mean I, actually,.

A

Thought is an exception at all. It will just read it exception. They surviving from Jason. So.

C

This is the what's the easiest thing that a user can write in their code to say that they they did. They want to throw an exception that says that serialization failed instead of their code, failed yeah.

G

I mean you can scroll down just a tiny bit: I mean I, have all new format except everywhere and I'm. Assuming that would just draw a new Jason exception. People I, don't think, aren't gonna write.

A

This or stating accident, that's one clue mean again would generally say, like whatever the outer exception is that you could just say we don't handle data just for with it. What would be even reputable right.

C

But the reason we want to wrap it is so you get the path context that the serializer has that the reader doesn't the serial organs. Don't because.

D

C

D

With exception, dispatching done yes,.

C

Well, you you wouldn't even need to do that. I think like if you see in Jason the exception coming up. Jason exception, presumably has a path, property or something, but they don't know how to set know. The Jason serializer doesn't know how to say user, throwing it with me now, which is why I said. Maybe you want they arrived type off of Jason exception, which is something like Jason conversion exception that doesn't take any of that data.

C

They throw what went wrong in their conversion, and then that gets wrapped in the standard serialization exception, which puts the path on the howler exception. Yes,.

A

Stephen, are you suggesting that we use EDI to basically catch the exception, set the path property, and then we throw the original course? Then you don't need EDI. For that, though, you can literally just meditate.

B

The exception and throw I was.

D

I was simply responding to the concern that, if you read throw using like throw space exception semicolon that you lose the original information, we have ways of working around.

C

That, but that was the concern, but.

D

C

You don't need that anyway, like you can literally do throw semicolon and it will refer the original object which you could have mutated inside the couch wall.

M

C

I

M

I

Yeah, that's right. The.

A

Only kids that doesn't represent the same, it depends.

J

On how many internal sense it has yeah I.

G

Don't think you can mutate the message, though, oh.

J

No cuz, that's on that lives. No.

C

That's not the message, but the.

J

G

We show the path as part of the message well,.

A

We could override the message. I'm super lazily right, in which case you kiss indeed angel yeah. Yes,.

C

You can have awareness, yeah.

A

We couldn't even change the message of the month. Good I mean repping is probably Connecticut ultimate. She always rep. So yeah.

C

That's just goofy, and so then the question is: should it just be the existing basic exception? There shouldn't be a new drug and I. Don't have strong feelings, but I do agree with it. It shouldn't.

L

Require them capacity yeah for options that they don't understand. Yeah I think I've got parameterless constructor.

K

And one day, justice is probably the easiest on just having on just an exception. Okay won't happen anyway, but.

A

What about what exception to be designate.

K

G

Please an exception on yeah, they said my prep is assuming we can mutate everything. The message and not you know, lose the stack that yeah Jason exception. I think would be the normal, except people would want to throw all and yeah yeah.

A

Yeah, like that seems very clean. Okay.

A

More Christmases that otherwise I have a specific question, a specific question or comment. So if you go back here, I'm still somewhat and loss how this attribute is supposed to work so yeah I guess it is I derive from this attribute right and then I override, create converter. If I want to have a special converter, what.

G

Do I only okay, sorry I'm just gonna interrupt! You only have to override this in a special case if you want to pass additional state to your converter. Otherwise you can use this existing one and just specify in the constructor of the converter, type and I'll automatically create the converter for you right.

G

A

G

To pass additional state, okay,.

A

So but my question is to a sense that so like so, let's say: I do my imitation converter attribute that creates some special converter that creates that need some state. What do I pass to my base, constructor.

G

You can search for this and there's a sample.

K

K

Because it's the very next one, it's the one that were to attribute you boy.

A

And so why would we like, it seems, like you know, passing the convertor type? You actually pass the type you're converting here, in which case should we just offer a parameterised constructor, that's protected.

A

But it seems like the converter property, as well as the also the converter type property plus the type is meaningless. Then you extend the attribute right. It's only really. It's only useful if you don't extend the attribute- and you just use it to basically have that guy work.

G

I think so, look at the code, I think I think the.

A

Otherwise, you just pass in random tights, which I'm not useful, with I mean.

K

Interestingly, in your example, you don't need to use tactical work in the creative or simile because he only put it on a seal.

J

C

C

But the specific type he was converting is in.

A

Fact this goes one step further should be also remove the property at that point, which property.

K

And convert a time on.

A

K

A

B

C

You think you want Jason converter, attribute and abstract Jason custom converter attribute. You know.

A

I'm just suggesting this I'm, just suggesting something simple I mean.

G

I think my feeling on that is, if you're gonna take a constructor or you specify the type that you should just have a property that you can return that you know that's pretty.

A

I mean you could leave the attribute and just said now. In that case, when you have been you basically extended, it is I.

B

Mean yeah, so it would be a well.

C

It's about one, it's just the value. Small CF then also works. You know if you were using, you know if you use reflection- and you put one of these back, you can see like they've reinstated, specifically this type but you're like whoa. What's what value did they pass? I, don't know that you can go back and recover what the literal in the il was.

A

Your reflection, you hear me, it's called custom interview data because that's what actual quality.

B

Metadata are, you know, you've got.

A

Way less convenient than.

B

Just reading the property on.

C

B

Edge of people.

C

Because you can't.

B

Get it from the attribute.

C

Constants, you have to go back to the Declaration site and then call it dinner API, which makes it again so you'd, say: you'd call get custom attributes. You know that great I got one of these I know you can do the.

L

Other, can you clarify.

C

L

K

For the protected parameter, let's finish up there, because.

A

What's the point in me saying.

C

Because everyone who derives it in that way, the best answer for them to pass is null. So why make them? That's a word as always doing is returning a type that it may not make sense like their create converter, doesn't have to return the type that they returned.

L

That was exposed on that property. Okay, don't we need a type it up at times.

K

I, even this example, you call you the place that were a bit the type yeah.

A

But that's that's either the wrong time right, because we see what you normally passes the type of the converter, which in your case is not the type of the convert II. Yes, it.

G

Helps the farmer create the time if you don't override and create over again, like.

A

In fact, if you don't, if you stayed is something you can compute yeah, you can actually get a wave in this sample to delete the entire constructor, because basically, we will automatically now invoke the base constructor, that is protected yeah, which doesn't get any stayed yeah. So the only way you only be able to have your own constructor I see if you need state yourself and then you just omit the entire base, call don't.

K

You at some point we don't get the type that you're practical more to you, get that that's.

L

Where you cause they're right.

K

We've overturned all if they can't do it right. So let's say we don't have the time we do have me help. Remember, let's not chapter on the aptitude sure what is the code of life of creative order exactly.

B

Like that exactly like this, because you.

J

Don't need this.

B

Time here right, the bear does type of point come okay, so this type.

C

Of point never mattered, no one ever read the value that went. They have in this code right now, I think the serializer does to determine. No would you be using where this attribute the type at this point converter attribute was on you'll, see it's, it's defining all the property, the attribute researcher. What is property? Not type okay,.

H

So create converter would be changed to be if type to convert equals type of point: yes, yeah. Okay, so.

C

Right now it just ignores that value, because the person who wrote it knows that they only applied it on the thing that was returning at the title on here, the value they pass to the base class we had ignored because, presumably it's the default value of the base. Korea inverter method is return. This attribute only.

K

Value for this calculate where Krammer would be for validation that you're, that the property at which you put it on majesty's not just.

C

Validation there there is also an example later in this document for doing list of teeth. Yeah, you did a generic, you didn't know what T was when it was applied which, by the way like later later in this meeting, I want to poke it out a little bit boy.

A

You support multiple diets. Right I mean you could imagine that point, converter doesn't just handle boy, but also handles or son is 32.3 or you just have one active it. It doesn't work yeah, okay,.

K

So they don't that case. Why do we need the constructor that takes if.

L

You don't derive if.

C

You just you just want to point to the extra converter yeah, that's send this value to that converter. Table I, don't have any extra data: okay, okay, I'm.

F

Stanchion it and.

C

Tell it that it's building to me, yes, which one gets from the generic.

F

Right, I think into the default implementation.

H

Of converter, attribute will implement great converter, adds great.

C

Activator instant slowly would have to check to see if you called the parameterless constructor and if so, throw saying you need to overwhelm each I mean. Presumably it's just returned activator, not create instance, the front of the property and, if you put it on there and then back to me to create instance, yelled at you well so I know. So now we have an issue right where, if, if your sub classing gates and converter attribute- and you really need to override a method- that's not mark abstract, and now we have problems. Now.

C

You know you don't ever write it uses whatever the property says which can be able, it could be null if you.

H

Wrote it literally too right so so you're basically expected to either pass it and type in the constructor or you're expected to have overridden no, and if you don't do either of those, then you may blow up at runtime and again you will find out the first time you can first.

K

Borrow my I guess: I was really confused because we have a parameter called converter type, then on where we have the type to convert these.

L

K

Two different things: yes, there's there were color t if you can beam in the camera, but I think the vertex tactical. What makes sense and.

A

The only thing you could do is.

A

So we're coming in C stupid you.

G

Can have two attributes or I think.

A

What attribute is fine, because it's, it seems like a very somewhat advanced scenario like I think the best we could do. We really want to help those people that need to extend this attribute is to say in the virtual method. We just check whether converter time is now and then to a better exception. Understanding the thing about reference, a yeah in operation exception. You must set a converter type or something right, I mean you didn't tell me what to do either overwrite me or tell me what to do my, but.

C

I'm, okay, yeah convoluted API- that, like you, obviously it tells you the first time you tried to use it right, I, don't like there's, not a delayed usability. This isn't a rare code path. This is the first time we tried using it. I told you.

K

But one comment: I had attributes may be steam. You want to talk to, that is the precedence ordering I'm gonna become okay. Before.

G

We talk about that, I mean I. Basically we're saying we don't need constructor um primer right, no I.

L

Decided either would be a protected perimeter. Yeah, you add a protected. That's for that and.

C

Leave the public.

L

C

Would still take the time yeah because that's the call music yeah.

G

In the protected constructor wouldn't have any arguments: yeah, okay, so yeah scroll to the very bottom of this dock and I talked about that issue. That has some mission, okay, which.

A

What is it very.

G

Very bottom just hit control him, but.

A

The various issue at the end of the three yeah.

G

The plot sorry I'm, sorry within that section it says the prior, the ordering um man, oh.

A

You mean actually, okay, so you made in the dock I thought.

G

F

D

B

B

Somebody in the wrong section and makes weapons this seems reasonable.

G

So that's about the the ordering I mean I, try to document that a little bit in the comments of the attribute. But basically, if you put on the Jason converter attribute on a property of Boko, you know a property of a local object. It's always gonna be used. Okay.

G

um The next thing that will be used is the any kind of runtime converter you added right, which will override any kind of static attribute you put on a type, but, for example, if somebody has a cool phone number type, and you put the attribute on it to say, here's my converter and you don't like that converter, you can still override it. There's a edie mechanism, think that makes sense to you. That would be consistent with how kind of the framework in a way does it.

G

You know, of course we don't add an attribute, the integers or whatever, but you can still override the default and then the last one, of course, is if you have no converter specified anywhere. You know: you'll fall back over the frame. The.

K

Same is reasonable, so in Goodstein.

J

One thing just to clarify.

K

Like the kind of a question you put a cube you on the property first, then you put the runtime registration and then you put a cube. You on the type right put in it, be property type then run ten registration, no.

A

Because think of it right like them, oh my! The question is like what is more localized right. The first one is more localized in the static hierarchy right because on the property, not on the time, yeah right, that makes sense, yeah right, putting something on the type means. This is global for the entire program right versus doing it in the registration on Civilization option is just global within your civilization section right, so that so the acceleration options is more localized than the type of distillation is so it's okay, that gotta but I.

A

Think to your point yeah, because you can register converters on properties on the sill ization options. That's why this believed thing happens, but I think if civilization options would give us a way to say on this type, this property has this converter. It would probably come after the after the like in between the first two right same button by the spiders produced by the same logic, but.

K

A property has a type returning I thought that that's the type that won't get mapped yeah.

A

But that is more less specific, then then the type is right. Sorry, it's much cooler than it than the time, but the property is the instance image he used to type which is more localized than the type as a whole. Should there.

K

Be another in this present hierarchy after the issue number at Google on cocoa, which is isn't of run time. Registration on the book on the actual instance, yeah I.

A

Don't think they had the ability to read a second writer for an instance.

C

A

C

You want to do that, though, because if you wanted to register the converter on the instance literally just knew up the converter and pass it in like to skip the serializer entirely.

K

So, let's let's say you had: oh I, see what you said so I'm saying if you had a complex object like a type with another type, zero. These are almost types of user-defined, the internal, the nested type under the rest of the one that has property. We do, if we add an octave converter attribute on it, say: I want to use somewhere food.

L

That will get honored over any registration that you make yeah, but now what I want is Joe that you that can wear your ID and putting it on an attribute. I think.

C

You would register the converter for the powder type at that point, because you're you're changing you're doing something other than what the type author intended and there's probably more, that you need to do rather than just change how that one inner piece of data see real life.

C

Okay, don't everybody Speculator? Well,.

A

Yeah because I mean it seems pretty weird to do that. The instant.

B

C

Yeah because you're you're you're suggesting what, if like, why? Why shouldn't the registration itself override, what's declared on the property. So you.

K

Have one about me: they'd come a graphical and you can administrate it as a instead, like all register, you.

E

K

Hey this is again set.

K

You can also put it active on the type itself, then class food. What if I wanna register? Who, where does that go there are in the hierarchy like in this case you have that people order education. Like course, tonight I'm gonna have a property that string I want to sprinkle border yeah.

A

Well, that's the third item in the left side.

K

That's the attitude where my registration I'm a registered at the motor for food for storing for that.

C

I think it better I think a better example. Is you have an order? An order has an address as a property. How do you register a converter for address if what your serializing isn't yeah I, think that is the converter service, because.

A

Right it could be because we had two converter, you registering it for it type, but if she affected the converter says, can convert type foo right return, true, but you don't specify the type, but given that, basically, we asked to convert that. Can you handle food? The answer is yes, your Victor. Your global registration is always for whatever types that converter.

K

A

K

A little registration is can over it in by an active record on order.

A

Well, you can only override it in the context of a property Nordic on the other type yeah.

K

A

Is the third bullet the same? The third bullet is saying that if you apply adjacent converter to the type, if you actually have an attribute on fool, that means you don't have to basically put the registration in, but if I, but if you do put in registration and that takes precedence or whatever you put on that attribute yeah, because it's more than it's more, it's more scope that it's its scope to use the relation section rather than to the entire program.

A

Okay, because the attribute will count in any civilization session right.

K

Oh the registration attribute, but then the registration beeps attributes on our property but doesn't be attributes on a type. So.

A

Because we think that's just because it is earlier- that's just an artifact of the fact that you cannot register civilization, sir converters for property right, there's no API for that. If there would be such an API I think that API would take precedent will be basic. The very first item in the list. Yes,.

G

Yeah so I mean, if everything being equal, runtime registration has priority over design time.

G

All right, which, which is the second or third bullets.

C

Once you've actually dealt into a type anything that that once you've actually said I'm going to once, you've made the decision to start serializing a type as the type itself is laid out yeah. At that point, you start trusting the annotations on the types of properties. You trust that it did that it's doing the correct.

L

Thing for its own faith, so I think this is primarily.

K

Done so don't look like that, you guys are pissed, so I think I'm. Okay with this I just recalled James mentioning, but he is camera model, the event, property class and global convergence, as well as various trade register. Converters.

L

G

You would swallow a second.

A

If you would, if.

G

You were to do that I mean then. Basically, when you put the custom data type I mean we put the attribute. You know on your custom data type or poke goal. um You can never override it right at runtime.

I

G

Oh I see it wouldn't be, and why would you register it at runtime if you can't, if it doesn't, do anything.

K

Yeah but like just like the whole property example, I I thought that appreciation.

G

Because of specific core property, you know you'd, like global I, think.

A

In general, me look at this format from a customer time. Right I mean there's two kinds of customers: right, there's the one: they don't want people of converters on the registration at all. They would just put the attributes on their details because they're designed for a socializing right, they would never put on properties either right. They would just put them on the time because you would just say my address type is going to be civilized everywhere, the same like.

A

Why would I want it different, but it's not the person or whether it's on an organization, it's just the same thing, right, yeah and there's a second kind of customers who Danny doesn't want to do anything on the air on their types. They just want to put everything on the on the on the registration, because I don't want to pollute their type, which is kind of a crystals coming from right, and then there is the kind of in-between where you know.

A

Let's say: Levi offers the address type and I'm using the dénia SDK, but I, don't like how how he like how his converter works right and it's converters on the type level so I'm like no I override this thing in my tea and you know in the the address, decay and I see a lot of differently right. That's why you generally want runtime registration to win, because it's the only way I have customized somebody else's time like if somebody else already designed it have to be serviceable, I'm stuck with their behavior.

A

Otherwise, you know it's true, though, like if you put things on owners, properties, I'm, yeah, yeah,.

K

Yeah this about any.

C

K

Of thing, but done.

C

But that again implies that you trusted my type to serialize itself correctly, yes, and if you trusted my type to serialize itself correctly. Hopefully you also trust the annotations I put on my own properties. Well,.

A

It suggests that what Trust is just think do I like what it looks like right, yeah well, but yeah I'm using the word. Trust me yeah.

B

A

I think that's the only kids we would overwrite somebody else's, but.

K

If you do not like it on the type, then why do you buy or give another property.

A

Yeah- and you know I'm just I'm, just asserting, then almost nobody puts it on a property.

B

C

But if you, if you change the registration for an entire type, you're, not picking up the annotations on the properties anyway, because you've written your own converter, yeah, so.

F

You're responsible for the entire stack.

C

At that point, because putting an annotation on the type is also.

B

A way to override the annotation or the declarations on the properties yeah just a different.

A

Type right so, for example, let's say let's say we have been a personal organization, an address right, yeah I can convert an address, but if you for the reason, put a property on the edges, property on type, an organization in person, you know, I also know how to register a basic inverter for our person and organization.

C

But why would I do that at the property it as the author of this class hierarchy? Why would I do that at the property level instead of the type level, unless I really wanted to change? How that one specific property went out yeah.

L

K

But in that case, should renovation and be the first thing because clearly you can override even the property attribute acting was on the property. No.

C

I the point that I was making was actually an argument to keep it house again go run out and go back to the go back to the orderings, have a right where you have like. Maybe maybe you have a billing address on the shipping address or both type twos address yeah? Why would I pass annotations along those properties individually, rather than just putting it on the address type?

C

It's just more work for me. The only reason I would ever do it, as the designer of that type is, if I actually wanted to change how billing and shipping were serialized with regard to each other, and at that point, I'm now making a very localized decision within the structure of this type, that this is how the data needs to look Emerson.

K

But now the user who doesn't know my model, you know as no need to inject the oh, no murder, but.

C

That's okay, because, like I as the author of the type and explicitly saying, if you're, if you, the caller, are already trusting me to lay this out correctly on the wire, this is how I'm dictating these.

K

C

Not necessarily because, at the type level, what you're saying is I'm putting this out on the wire, the way that address would do itself like I'm making from within the order class I'm. Making no statements as to how address should actually write itself out an address is fully responsible for that, and in this case you can change how address is responsible about if the order type were instead to put annotations both on shipping address and billing addresses properties. Now the type the order type is sane. I am very opinionated as to how they say.

C

If we're going to.

L

Get rid of now, but this distinction might be.

K

A bit confusing it's better than just disagree than what is our answer is.

L

K

Believe and then you and.

C

I, don't necessarily dare to say that this is the one true answer: it's just I can reason to myself with this totally excise. My.

K

Only wedding is lateness other we should try to because its personality or something so.

A

What does Jason? Don't let you do? They have registration for time and property.

G

But I don't think they have anything special for property. You.

C

Know there is nothing stopping us in the future from being able to add converters for individual property infos as well. If we really decide that's a scenario, we want to support yeah.

G

I mean I, there's a couple hierarchies. Those points confusing, there's runtime versus design, time too, and then there's sight property. So you lay those two on. You have a matrix, there's a missing thing here, which would be the first pole. It says at runtime I need you know for this particular property, disc inverter.

G

That would actually be the first thing on here is that and anyway, yeah so layer, yeah, steady, our design have a run time and then type versus property and I think this is to follow from that, but maybe I'll put in in here that other missing entry we'll see you know future possible future feature or something to make that matrix, very clear, I.

C

Had a question about your list of T inverter, so you you have an example in this document for how you can write using a single converter, something that can handle both lists event and list of long.

C

How do I also extend that to support literally list up T where I don't know the team at compile time, T could be person, T could be itself list event and so on, like how was that our colonial well.

G

Ultimately, you have to know, or have some default logic, to handle everything right, because you have to realize our DC reliance.

C

Well, not necessarily because if the serializer itself already knows how to serialize person through some mechanism and I know how to serialize lists of T, how do I compose my stuff on top of the serializers existing knowledge on how to work with person.

G

You can delegate like calling the sterilizer again with your type, so you could do it that way. I didn't call back in the sterilizer okay um in theory, if we had a nice model here, which I don't think I'll have time to you'd, be able to say, give me the converter for customer a person whatever and I'll just return the default one. If there's not one today the default one's not expose you to get no back, and then you could call read, read or write directly on that converter as well.

G

Okay, as an alternative to calling the Jason serializer attic.

C

Methods like okay, so even even if we don't have api's for the scenario, I think having documentation for what it might look like to write. Such a converter would be really useful because we, unlike I, said in this document. We already have examples of how to do list of int in list of long I would just like to see that extended to support this to literally.

K

C

Anjaneya yeah in the open generic well.

G

I mean in the end it gets close right and calls your method. It.

C

Does but what what does it look like for me, as as a person writing a list of teeth.

G

Wide this down sample once I check to close in to but to the key value pair mm-hm type, I'm gonna, be key value pair key key key value or souls can vary, and the converter of stuff won't have any specific knowledge of those. True I can point to that one that might be a better example than list, because it's also more complicated because you have to generic bill use. Okay,.

I

G

Is kind of we can, you know, support you know more than one generic value with this model, yeah.

C

And I think the reason I mention this is because I think there are going to be some power users who want to do something like this and having samples would go some way toward fulfilling that. Okay.

G

I have one more item: I want us to feedback on if you want to scroll up to the okay thanks thanks for that feedback, yellow I'll do that I'm gonna see the very table on the API section. I added I met that base of some feedback or get converter options.

G

um It has a list of converters here and, if you scroll down just a hair, just say get converter. I added this based on feedback. um I can explain. I mean it might be useful to you. If you're ready to implement in converter, say hey, give me the default anoon converter. Instead of having to call back into the framework, you know Jason sterilizer, dud, worse or something more efficiently, but getting the converter and doing it that way. However,.

G

If this could actually be another helper method on a custom collection right now, it's a list of GSN converter on the converters property who could make make a custom collection and have that method on there. That's one alternative, but the main thing that that can't kind of came up in implementation of this is that this method exists internally already, and it's called quite a bit by the framework, but it assumes that once it calls it, it gets the proper converter given a whole list of converters and then caches it.

G

So if somebody calls this Nocturne, DC, realization or serialization, but before that I'm not sure what to do, I mean if we cache it at that point, we'd have to throw it away. You know when the first use of serialization occurred, because it could change right. Oh I, get thrown valid operation documented, saying, hey, don't call unless you're coming from a converter. So why do we need to be public? We don't need to is just based upon feedback that that said, hey you know how do I get a converter from within a converter.

G

There hoped, instead of having to do the re-entry on the on the Jason sterilizer, which has problems like losing path, for example, and pluses slower so I.

I

A

See a scenario where I would like to instantiate my own converter, passing in the existing controller in this case, I would not be able to do that before.

A

Okay, couldn't do it after civilization, when started right, I would have to do that effectively up front yeah.

G

So we get a load. I just have to UM do the right thing internally to say: okay, you can call girl, you want you gotta, you had a converter, you plug it further again, you might get a different result back. um You know. I I just need to discuss that with somebody before I. You know that I'm implementing that only.

A

What I would do is I would say, get converter like the API. You have here never caches unless there's an internal method that you call on metallization starts it's like say, snapshot or something, and after that point like you, can learn or modify converters, and that's also when you start caching before that, you don't care. Okay. As long as everybody's.

G

Okay with this I can get get it to work like like that. So.

K

Just to understand better is getting border effectively. Just looking at your I list of these converters, it's finding the first one that matches yep.

G

And then also, if you pass in a type that needs to go through the factory it'll do that for you and what were the users do a send list of customer? And you know somebody implements list of T.

M

It'll return the proper one for you and what should the user do? Okay, I've gotta get the order. Now that was.

K

Just go: what do I do with it? Well,.

G

I think yeah the the main scenario that I thought, if you you're in the implementation of your own converter yeah, and you just need to convert a property that you don't know how to convert um yourself, maybe for whatever reason. Okay I knew want to do that efficiently. This is how you got other scenarios yeah. Maybe you want to inspect the list of converters without having to manually, implement the same logic as get converted to figure out which one would be selected for.

A

G

Out ordering or something like that, you.

A

Just would have to cost it, though right.

G

Yeah yeah you'd have to inspected to say, okay, what do you derive from? Is this the one that I want whatever I? Don't I? Don't really I, don't honestly have a better scenario for that or the the case called outside of a converter, but I assume some people might want it.

A

You would have to do something like it convert, you know, type of something and then say doc, as whatever I saw it and then the space, as you know, Jason converter of some specific time right and.

K

Then you can call the read an item. You know that caller we didn't write API.

A

For that, okay, yeah yeah, okay, which means you have to know something about that converter right like you, can just randomly do it for random converters, probably, but.

K

Also, this thing returns another. What is your folder? Okay, I'm? Writing at the murder. I, don't know. I read: hater died. One option, is you just throw an exception that says dude you register converter.

A

For that I, don't know how I put my nicest time. This is not my problem. This is your problem to figure out.

K

That make sense.

G

Like I said, is optional I needed to do something like this when I was prototype in a key value pair converter, because the TPMT value options are like was asked earlier, I, don't you know the converter doesn't care what they are just wants to convert them? We.

A

Can't make sense, if you think about let's say you want to do the f-sharp thing where you say: I can do this community unions right. You know how to you know, detect the discriminated union. You know how to do the decay switch, but then you don't know how to do student vs. person yeah. You just say you give me the person of student converter, but but I know how to do the. You know the surrounding JSON to the stand and that's basically what you could implement that.

K

Is there there could be a potential problem like because it calls with risk or no.

G

Recursive between what, like.

K

Your converter calling get converter getting the calling or you method on that. More then well.

C

I, ideally, if you're getting a converter for a list of person, the list of person converter would need to call back in here in order to figure out what to do, I mean you can you could also do that at try, read and try right time, but that might end up being more expensive than doing it here. That's why I would like to see the sample code yeah, though we discussed earlier yeah.

G

I think I'll paste the key value pair example once I have the currency here, all right, hey um thanks. Everyone, I guess for our time right. We're.

A

Out of time and I think like it seemed that we covered everything.

G

G

It's up to you whether we want another meeting or not or email, no.

A

I think I'm done with this one I gave you have since we I mean I, think we made the decision what to do with this API at this point: yeah, okay and so yeah. Why wouldn't it just be a prude like I would again I tasted the feedback in and no it's done.

B

Okay, yeah all right, it only took a few months, but that's fine good things. Take them all right. I've.

C

Had API reviews stagnant since November.

B

So whatever alright bye folks online.