.Net Foundation Design Reviews, 26 Mar 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: .NET Design Review: JSON Serialization

Description

Today, we're continuing our review of JSON serialization.

https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/34372
https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/36351

A

I think we alive, you messing with me with one all right, so this is you created a new issue to walk just the new stuff that we have, because we have like five reviews, I. Think at this point over the stuff, yeah.

B

This was the same issue we reviewed last time. We just remove. Your arm features have been discussed yet o XE I kept the same issue. I still had some activist actions on it, but that would cover this and then, if we have time move on to the property name,.

C

A

I know the answer to that already in there yeah well.

B

It might be nice to time box actually yeah, maybe the first half and this one just so I get some feedback on the second issue. I would do it. Okay,.

C

You can skip. All of us have been reviewed until we get to the options.

C

B

Yeah so so, last time you got some feedback to lift up the a generator options, so I lifted up three properties. There's one more I didn't lift up, which is the hip validation, I, think that's still pending I mean we lift it up if we need it like 33 properties. Here.

B

um And then the other feedback was there was concern about mixing design, time and runtime type behavior and I added back in a way this originally at attribute method, um except I, now list, in this case one of the attributes. So that's covered later in this document- and this is the main thing I want to get feedback on for this issue- is that? Are we okay with doing this?

B

This does not return any kind of runtime information like the old approach, where you call get class or get get class back, get property and then add the attribute to the des Plantes for the property. But this just finally says here's a runtime attribute and we can expose the runtime information at some future point at runtime. Future information won't be based on attributes. These doubtful pools.

D

And amps, and that sort of thing so with this whole JSON object, the reflection for JSON type is now removed.

D

I'm, not sure would be so. You used.

B

To have oh, yes, like.

E

D

Good class enforcing.

E

And then it would return.

D

Json class info that, under that one is now internal correct, because, yes, people will just use an awesome, I love it. Okay, I think it's a no I had a question why there are parameters that are optional for the great attributes like what does it mean to add an attribute property attribute and not specify which property? Okay.

B

Today, the the attributes, if you put design-time attributes, can either apply to a class or a property they apply to the class and they apply to all the properties, at least for these types of attributes. Now, so, if you don't specify property, it applies to all of them. That's why the property, as finds that one property, and if you don't specify anything which is the first one, the pipe is global to this to their.

D

Property maintenance, so one thing I would do is I would always put the JSON ignore. A pretty attribute is the first parameter. Okay,.

B

That was one one of my questions. I had I was kind of like name, comma value right now and I wasn't sure. If there was a guideline.

B

Because that's the only one covered in this document there will be other ones, but.

F

Like are you gonna, add a different, add attribute for every attribute Piper? Is it going.

B

To be a bass classic, okay, so originally I had this and it'll just look kind of loosely tighten. You could add me any attribute this one I'm, assuming that I want to create these three overloads for every for the 10 attributes we end up having soon might be 30 for those, but why wouldn't you just innate a basic ad for all J simulated? It should be this weekend, but I there was. There was originally some discussion what discoverability, but this could be all collapsed until you had the base.

B

If we had a base type, all attributes are just call it attribute. Even systems out attribute is its pseudo strongly typed here and a little more discoverable, but it does mean that whenever we added an attribute, we have to have these three measures. Yeah I.

D

Will do some base time Jason, either directly system attribute or actually just inject em in the middle okay.

G

So the other thing so.

D

We don't have any concerns like what are the billet attributes. Well, this feature is like for advanced scenarios so like. If it was, you know how do I see analyze an object that has applied that reduced and I would worry about that. I.

F

Would make Jason serialization attribute and then you can just hope that we either your IDE or MSDN gives you the what things derives.

B

Okay, so so, if we have a common base class yeah yeah, then you just open up yeah online help and I will show you the possible Durante, okay yeah, so that like I said I was considering these, but this is a starting place. So I'll do that. Oh I.

H

Have a question about something he said a minute ago, so the you talked about. One of these cases applying to the attribute applies to all properties on the title, which one is that is that the not the second case does that apply to the type arisen. Okay,.

B

It depends on the attribute it the attribute all it gets for a property like, for example, this ignore ones is talk about joint, specific property yeah. Then, when you call the second one, it's the default or properties, and this is the same at design-time. So if you pop that attribute on it on a class, a public class by default, for example, one of the abilities would be you know, don't they realize read-only properties?

B

And you know you kind of suck to have to put that on every single property and not all property are not all attributes may apply the property, so you might be, may get an exception if it doesn't apply, and so.

H

It's intended to have.

B

Validation it'll, look at the dough.

B

Applies to information on the advocate to figure out, it may be some custom.

H

Logic, attributes I, just I, wonder I, wonder about this because an MVC we have things like this, where it's sort of like well, you can apply this here and it means that so you can apply this here and it means that it's, my my advice are sort of.

H

My principle is like: if there are going to have attributes that apply to the type that effect all the properties that belong to, that type, make sure that it's really unambiguous that that's what that means versus being something that is equally valid on the type any fully valid on the property again really gaming and everything has to sort of reflect those.

G

H

Or consider just not having those because they're a little bit complicated to use or a little bit complicated in.

A

My question: is they close down with Jason Higa no property? What does it mean to platon inside of the mean that the type itself becomes out serializable? Although.

D

All the properties, it's basically I'm applying in such a good to all of the stuff.

A

But what does it mean means if you know soon as the time? What do you get like just open, brace, close race, okay,.

B

So so scroll down, because it actually that this attribute has some knobs essentially covered in because.

G

B

Originally had some of these knobs on on this in this issue and currently checked in, but I decided to cover this one after Pete here and I did add two features here that were discussed. I'm not gonna, implement these right away because we have another time slot for this. But this is a PID proposal that the first one ignore says: yes, ignore everything, and if you drop that on the class, it wouldn't be essentially turned into everything off by default right and then you would have to turn it on each property by explicitly override them.

B

So you could actually flip the behavior. That's not something that is a like, of course, an area or anything like that. But as pseudo could be pseudo useful for something that it just kind of falls out because of the semantics and then they ignore read-only. um This is pretty common, I think request to say: don't serialize properties, I, don't have better.

B

And then the other two I had previously in stalking about the values. At that point,.

A

What's the people behavior, we don't they're.

F

All false, so if I clap Jason ignore property on a property, it is as if it's not there there sorry, it's it says, ignore nothing. Therefore, it's the same as if I didn't put the attribute on something ignore um you.

B

Mean yeah, if you don't send any properties on you? Okay, that's a bad design! Yeah, because.

A

I mean the query code by user, say: open bracket, Jason ignore property, close bracket. That looks like the.

C

Part that sounds like you.

A

Ignoring it, but then because you didn't set any properties that they should do. Okay, well.

B

I mean that's the problem, I guess, with having multiple options on an attribute yeah. It has no in this particular case, not all cases it doesn't have any semantics, like so I mean.

A

Quite frankly, that's one also I think just from the schema standpoint, it might become fairly busy if you have to apply that to the roof and then you've to set properties on it. It might actually be easier to if they're different properties that might actually really easy.

A

Ok, so I got that he's not mad at it. For us, but like it's hear.

B

Me select it: okay, the Diamonds not intuitive right because he slept that property, but it doesn't ignore anything right now. Can you clarify what you were saying? No, so.

A

Like you couldn't marry, instead of having one property before ok bad, but describe. Thank you. Basically, when you put this one attribute on it right, you have four other properties you have to set. Alternatively, you could imagine a designer instead of having one attribute.

I

Or four properties you have four yeah.

B

Now I mean in order to get around the first concern. I think that's us! What I have to do is have four after view are our three attributes. Maybe two of these could be I, mean yeah.

A

I was loaded saying you can probably combine. Some of them are they're not of anybody.

F

And if you mentioned, ignoring read-only properties and I know that we have guidance and says not to have said only property. But.

F

Like I said only bro, oh okay,.

B

um Well, since said, only it won't be yeah, it won't be serialized, of course, but it could be used funny or it just does I guess what would be natural. You have the data a little said it non-special logic.

B

Okay, so I can split this up at least into three attributes.

B

Ignore and I you know, honestly, we don't need the ignore read only this was a ask or it was brought up and I have like I said that, as a feature, support ignore I think this is pretty common. So, but we don't necessarily need it at this point so thing that I get is the.

H

Thing that I think that is a little bit confusing about ignore viewed only is that it only makes sense when applied at the class level. Yes, because you don't need ignore, read only you could just say ignore this property, because it is real. That is so. It only makes sense either as a global setting or as a class level. Yeah.

B

And I guess: if we split that into us on attribute and say class, only and not property, only that would make more sense and.

H

The other the other settings I'm here, like the ignore setting, only makes sense on property because you well.

B

You love, you, I mean it's kind of nonsense, so, like no.

H

B

You can turn it on. It's like no security thing, almost turned everything off, not individual property, but like I said that is not a requirement that.

D

Just kind of fell out from so you preserve the order if I first apply a tribute to Michael assembly, say ignore everything and then I keep adding out your good sticker. You're gonna you keep the order, I mean and attribute.

B

Apply a default to a class and be overridden by property.

D

C

D

Thought you, so you don't keep the order if I turn it off for a property and then I apply then enable it. What happens.

A

You mean like, if you apply the same material multiple times, I would honestly say we should cover through and say your state.

C

Is invalid, you.

B

Had the same attribute more than once, you will get an exception like a design time. You can't add the same attribute.

D

Because that two bids would be single, yes,.

F

We ignore should just be by itself. No read-only should be by itself in applicable class, all right, I guess it's too tight, that's different class. We.

A

Believe that ah the default of civilizing we don't want properties, is a good idea. Yes, well.

J

So I think a lot of people end up defining immutable struck and those are mutable Struck's. You can generally initialize about Proctor, and so you want to be able to serialize your bead only property is that way you can actually reconstruct the object using director or builder pattern. What.

D

Do we do till that, second, that different system on the other side, it's a.

H

Super common scenario: yeah you.

D

Have to bundle.

B

Them up and call the constructor online you.

D

May use it either on the other side and and rejoice on and manually go start this year. But.

J

I think it's fairly common to have immutable types rocks or classes, where you have a builder pattern to update things, in which case you wouldn't want to have to jump through extra hoops to make 90% of your types work with the area like so.

H

Think about think about, like two years from now, if they do, the records feature for C sharp because, like the DTO is that people write if you're, using no mobility checking just like but make you sad right like they're all every every detail you have is a warning about. You have a constructor that doesn't set these properties, so something like this really wants records. If you're using no ability like, if you care about that, you will, you will want to use records or if the sterilizer and.

J

Then you've got languages like F sharp, for everything is immutable, wide fault and if you ship it where everyone's gonna have to say, yes, I want every single type to serialize. All it takes Falcon announcer its it's.

D

Half of a must-have feature for a dress decay.

D

Interesting me, as you observed with the currently this civilizer, doesn't let you deserialize such immutable of the graphs, but we talked about it, maybe in the future anything good and.

F

Then I don't know, but how I feel about no values because really feel that the deviant value of the attribute should be to be like if you made a ignore null value attribute, if you didn't specify anything, it feels like, you should ignore null values all have to revisit.

B

It if we split this into multiple attributes, because it doesn't make as much sense, but the idea is if it's null, then at like a higher level. um You know it doesn't, have them tell you it over. You can be overridden at the lower level, but if that's good the semantics for these rules anyway,.

B

Yeah it doesn't, it doesn't make his website the other.

H

Thing to think about, in terms of in terms of having multiple options on one attribute is you do have this idea of scoping? You do have this idea that, like settings are applied globally versus at the class whole property level, it's like well what? If I write a class and I, don't know what the setting is application level or at the Assembly level, when I wrote.

H

Can I can't know what the settings are that are being applied at a bigger scope, but this one these settings would land at their property. Maybe I just wanted to say: okay, so yeah.

B

Insoluble they're nullable no is.

H

That the reason, because there's.

B

Four or things on here you might only want to set one of them yeah, but if they're split into separate attributes or maybe four separate entities, then they they wouldn't have to be knowable because he wasn't added unless.

F

Yeah just being for central practice: okay,.

B

Okay, so I think I have enough. Then this is all the document covers. I think I have enough unless there's any other comments, it'll update this in just an email out, email on the updated version. Yes,.

A

Sir I didn't submit a PR from the last one, normally I said many PR for every single round like today, I will just submit the brown 4 and 1/3 Mon Pere, and then you buddy basic, get an email. I will just respond to the ok for the meeting with the p.m. okay.

C

Yes, we can go to the other.

D

The question about the attributes: are they gonna, be in the same? Namespace? Is the serializing yeah.

B

Any any attribute currently that you can apply to a class might be in the same namespace our. So if it's a base class, perhaps that should be somewhere else. We can hide it. So there's this policy namespace, that's intended for people that are adding new attributes and things like that hides a few same as.

D

When you create realizable types would apply them as well: okay, so it's not just or but I didn't using the same attributes that I manually and then design.

B

D

Runtime, and also right so at some point, I cannot pass the question: do we have the right namespaces or the reader writer and the serializer? It seems kind of backwards that the serializer is in a sub namespace of something that contains very low-level by rare types.

D

A

That I think we should pull live a separate pass over the whole.

I

Thing because it's easier to look at the whole thing and then shuffle thing so.

B

The reader and writer and the document are in the road namespace correct, there's yeah so, which is which they do not have their own namespace OB.

D

You know we'd have to pull it out a system that takes time yeah, because you know, like some people, will just hear that we release system text up JSON package. They will naturally go to the root namespace and find very complicated types, but I mean. Should we have a sudden coming system text json, dot, leader yeah, something like this I mean it's unfortunate that either doesn't work for the writer or.

B

The other option which is parted before was just to put everything in the same namespace, but I think that we will have twenty thirty classes in the end and that's kind of adding a lot. I think yeah.

D

I think one namespace will be bad because then you wouldn't know which what applies to it. It's basically and being.

A

Dependent future yeah, it should just take a holistic set and then just shovel things along perfectly to see what we like and then just be named. Okay, I guess, I'm kind of Nutter issue. For that then yeah I just didn't know. We should just set up a meeting like no or maybe in this go with a list. Okay, I'm participating, I want Creighton issue.

C

All right so then, both this one here, okay, so this is just another attribute.

C

And yeah I listen, yeah, keep up the kind of goods.

B

um So this hasn't three main types of functionality. It allows you to specify a name of a property, and so just gonna say this is always called foo, ignoring casing. Whatever I mean you just wanted one, it's supposed to say, naman um or you can apply an attribute that knows how to convert a name in this case we're going to provide a default implementation for camel fees, and then, if you wanted to extend this or something there's a base, the base attribute of this here will allow you to do that.

B

You can create your your snake case and, for example, it also on that base attribute as a plate. That says whether you want to use case insensitive property names so yeah. These are the before four features.

F

Instead, it was that.

F

But because we have culture like it is the current culture, this red culture, I think about stranger.

B

Stuff, yes, wondering what insensitive I mean I'll, look at the what Jason doesn't that does I think what I think culturally.

K

Would be really surprising, I think it makes sense just to do invariant I agree, Jason donate does invariant I had it does Hotel or ordinal comparisons.

K

F

I'll call that out in the ordinal or that's one or what ordinal ignore case, I, invariance and ordinal are different than like three places.

F

I think I've seen the post about I was just confirming what we wanted that property. We have a lot of different indoor cases about men.

I

To use them all.

B

Okay, Lily I saw you guys, take a look at the examples here. This is just basically flying at design-time attributes.

B

So here this thing, I want this property to be an explicit name, I'm, so Jason, properly named Matthew and then down below is line of camel casing attribute.

F

Does the word converter need to be a management, no.

B

I couldn't think of a it seemed like need of something station camel casing seems to apply.

F

This live stream is the.

E

Second era, which slavery hi, everyone.

A

Yeah I was about to say the same thing about my name like I, think Jason name about to be easier, hey. What else would be.

C

B

Me name supplied to a property yeah like there are some collisions, I, don't know if we hear Jason Dunn dead on some of this stuff and I have to take a look at that. It.

D

Well, there are conflicts with the attitude well, their names, I.

B

Have to look like I said to make sure I sent his Jason property; okay, so there's no Jason name. Then. Okay, no.

K

Jason is no Jason property and I married okay,.

B

Or just okay, so if we call adjacent property that would conflict them J, something.

K

There's no chess and no matriod just stress on property, a true.

A

What is it allowed to do? Just setting the name as well.

K

Jason property attribute has many many things on it, I pretty much against you most most things you can set on a property like, for example, how it behaves when there's a null value, its name, whether it's required or not. Those are all suitable on pets and property attribute.

A

Good or like, if you ever want to add those, maybe Jason name, that is an unfortunate choice.

D

Yeah yeah I think it makes sense instead of applying 500 use. This one attribute that lets you specify the nursing and name and other things I.

A

Mean the other questions like I, don't think we care about the conflict in case in my night, because I mean within a single try. Do we accept people to use both.

A

Like I mean, let's say we name our Jason property name attribute just J's property attribute like same what Jason Arnett does I mean the the rule of not conflicting comes from the point that menu very commonly mixed technologies within the same file right because they don't want to qualify every single thing right, but I would think if you actually end up using both services on the same type, I probably want to specialize everything because I got, although otherwise you you have to do the mental gymnastics yourself of like all this Jason and you become some Jason Lynette.

A

This one comes from the building one like at that point: you're, probably better off just saying screw it I just go to the top I'm named everything of platform, time everything, the other one and then I just have some sort of prefix. That I can reason about. Otherwise, you just I mean first of I, don't think it's very likely that people do that and, secondly, the people that do do it probably want to understand which IT becomes or just they're fully qualifying with the namespace. Well, I would probably do using it.

A

It is, or something or a job to just give things like quick prefixes like Jason net law, but.

D

The noncom guideline.

A

To not conflict.

D

It's not only for the kind of type name resolution in a file also samples documentation, searching online. If we name it Jason property attribute, it will be very difficult to find documentation for it, for example. Well, it's.

C

Basically, based.

D

On that man is so mature technology will always hit they get hints for days on that net.

F

Yeah I just don't know, but it's this thing I mean I'm just trying to get amusing where we said, but they ignore that we wanted to break one property up into four and now we're talking about squishing four things in the one yeah.

B

Yeah I think the biggest difference is that the reason why one big attribute with a bunch of settings doesn't work very well is, if you have a concept of defaults on the class type, um then they'd be it didn't have to be nullable like ahead and I'm gonna. Be this example, because you don't want to necessarily plot defaults on ten things. You know fish up there like pools and things like that that will have a normal default value.

B

So that's why originally I did have adjacent property attribute with a few things on it and I can't remember the name, but it did ended up getting split up into like the ignore.

G

Doesn't not setting have a meaning anyway, that's humanity, meaning, so why have it not say what does not set me in does different from one of the true booze values.

A

What do you mean by that? If.

G

Someone doesn't set up one of the booths, that's not able she has just. She needs to act right. What do they do? It has to take one of the two options. No.

A

Lex think about this video if they attribute a flat at the class and at the property right now, you basically have to decide for a given setting. Let's say ignore now evade you like, maybe what you applied at the class level. You only meant to say you know ignore read-only, so you only said ignore read-only, you didn't say you didn't mean to say, ignore not ignore null values, but if it's a bool like it's either true or false right, but neither of these things are the actual setting you meant to apply.

A

You know what I mean it's. Basically, how do you merge effectively multiple applications of the attributes at different points in the hierarchy she has two separate effectively. The value was specified to. The Meili was not specified.

K

So n n go stand on it just for some context about how it works. Jason property has severed. Jason property has 17 properties on it, so it's quite a big boy and I. Don't know if you talked about this earlier around the ignore property, but nullable attributes aren't really allowed on nullable, noble types and allowed on attributes just because it's not a constant expression, etc, etc.

K

So what I do is, although the property on Jason property is not nullable I track internally, whether something's been set on it, so the internal fielders know and if it isn't set, then I assume, there's no there's no value for it, and then I can look to the parent class, for example, to then use its value. So if you haven't set a what would be an example on it, I get a behavior for how it handles when there's a null value.

K

It will then look to the class attribute to see how it should behave when there's a null value and it's done by an internal knowledge field, but the actual public value on the attribute is not null just because of the limitations of attributes. So.

B

You can have knowable properties as just I'm, not sure.

B

Restriction answer I mean you're, you have an elbow feel, but you said the property can't be no football.

K

I thought I thought on attributes. You couldn't have nullable types. Maybe it said like a limitation of don't man, I guess I had my prototype, I had noble properties, so I.

B

Could do some research on.

K

I definitely remember running into that issue and I was googled hood like five seconds ago to double check head and a stack. Overflow issue came up about how nullable and sanitary constructions or properties isn't allowed. But then again the question is almost nine years old.

B

Okay, yeah so I'll follow up on that then, like I said, I wasn't running any issues with the prototype. They did this um okay, so I mean that that is something to think about. If we want to do if we want to have a uber property attribute and I in, like I said I had that previously it contained everything on for a property except for extensible.

B

Things like this camel casing, because you can't I, don't want to put an enum on that property and just say you know: do you want camelcase in our snake casing or whatever, because then you know ties it to a fixed set. So the idea was at that point to have one big attribute and then for the extension points you know, would have their own attribute. Well,.

D

You could have like enum or the built-in converters and then, if you're not happy with one of one of those files, then you apply an attribute to specify convert.

B

Yeah you could do both yeah I I did I didn't take that approach, um also because we'd only hit with one right away. It's a little goofy I'd have Amina with one.

A

Value I just tested it means is where I'd like the compiler it lets. You declare the Malibu, but then, when you as soon as you, try to assign the property and constructor of the or the construction syntax when you apply the attribute says ignore is not a valid named attribute argument, because it's not about it at speed, parameter five because they basically have.

B

A constructor or arc or that nobody.

A

Basically used in my given you've been you've been apply. The attribute you basically have a pseudo constructor call where you saying property equals glove over the equals lower edge, and then they soon as you do, that it feels okay.

B

So you can actually.

A

Decide to it, but.

B

There's a difference.

C

B

Constructor, arms and.

C

A

J

C

So that it right.

J

Here, if you use it either as a constructor arc or as a property that you explicitly that it complains, because it can't encode a nullable struct, okay,.

B

Because, lastly, one thing in a prototype because I thought I did was for.

J

Attributes it has to expand it into binary, metadata and nullable is technically a user-defined struck and there are no struck constants.

B

Okay, so on, like I, said I you I.

K

Is there's a workaround like what I did so? Yes,.

G

K

A

Which is not horrible, but you will just have an internal property like I, don't know effective, you don't want effective blood I, just basically trading in olive oil. It's either said or not said. Yes, sorry.

K

I have another problem with chest: man.

D

A

The you basically track it in the cellar and initializer.

D

A

In dfd declare a new property that its internal that is basically affected, whatever the other property is called.

L

A

Can do it I mean I mean you can, but basically the way you would do this. You would just you that you look at the customer to view data and you can ask that guy, but what initializes your present I mean it's pretty straightforward to do that. What do you have to translate it in? From that point of view, which is also not horrible? Honestly, it's actually kind of what he would have to do. Anyways if you would customer to Big Data yeah.

F

Like me, having a very obvious like this, is the name, the name hasn't required string to go with it like a pie, Campbell case like he's, feel I, don't I, don't know why we would want any bread well.

D

The that probable denali booze is not because of a new morality. The problem with the knowledge was, is a result of us having to have that high road.

A

Well, not really because if you split it up into multiple attributes, yes, you can use the presence of the non presence of the edge of identification for that right, because if you apply something at the property level- and you have basically one attribute for camel casing it another attribute for ignoring you. And then you never have this problem that you have to merge. Settings didn't mean to set across hierarchy boundaries because.

D

A

But I'm saying.

D

Like, as soon as you have.

A

Multiple properties, the hierarchy is not a problem because basically the merging is basically done by the is the attribute present and it takes precedence. The attribute is not present, then it's merged. You.

D

Don't need to measure anything because there are defaults and basically, if you, if the property shows you know, is not specified, you will just set it to the default value into attribute. Yes,.

A

But the point is that, because you only have one attribute, you end up having to decide if you merge the across the hierarchy, what how you do, how you determine that the property wasn't set? Yes,.

D

A

Did you say yeah, but hierarchy.

D

Then you don't maybe.

A

We'll have a hierarchy, there's also going to be a hierarchy. Jeremy's, basically saying if you split the attribute, the problem disappears.

F

Unless you want to range the cable case on every single property.

D

Do you ever like pain? These properties will become a case, but these others.

D

That's exactly what I'm saying: maybe the camel casing is just the type of liability.

B

Not I'm into property yeah.

D

Because I mean dividual property. If you want to change the casing, well, you may just rename the Archer I mean the property.

B

I didn't run times more already can place the other attribute on it. You mean that they love the other place. Let's just say: I use this thing yep they using this camel.

H

Casing the default.

C

um Whatever your type is, that's go case, I guess I mean going on.

H

So so in our, in our experience with just having camel casing, be the default various banette far less important to need to configure these things. If the default is work well, little do people have do. We have important scenarios where they need to be pascal case. Is there like a rationale for that.

A

And the only one you could argue that it might be cheaper to compare the strings there. Yeah.

K

Jane Porter's Jason doesn't have so Jason Don, it defaults to pesto case or whatever you have in your object. Yeah. It defaults to not applying any naming format to your types and for asp.net. We just happened to configure the serializer to default, to use a camel case, naming standard.

H

I mean you also made that decision long before long before the modern age as well, and they kind of kept it or do you feel like there's a strong reason? Why that's the correct thing to do.

K

I I think, like even I I, don't necessarily think.

K

Just because Jason, like I, thanked, Jason's ubiquitous and beyond just JavaScript like I, think JavaScript we like to have camel case but I think or a general serializer Pascal case is fine and in cases where you're focused on JavaScript, you can add a camel case. Converter and mend user I got I I, think not applying a name and standard is what I like. But this is my opinion.

D

Most based on that I've seen I think it's done a common case. This panic fact that it has, you know very little to do with JavaScript I think have just went with the conventional I think.

G

Pause, the concern would be. Why is my cocoa update not being absolutely correctly in the JSON when I didn't apply any attributes? Why did the C hazard do some magic without me opt into it.

D

But it's yeah I agree, I, don't know one! You should choose about this I.

F

Certainly won't I named it with a capital letter. Why did you change it to a lower case letter? Don't do anything unless I tell you to well.

A

I mean there's something where I honestly don't have strong opinions, but I mean if you I'm a dog net side. It makes sense right, but the but the question is: does it make sense that the seller, when you consider an all web side where you consume the peddler from Davos good, where just is very unnatural, to have yeah.

H

I mean I know what we're gonna do.

H

D

Something that our users are happy with so I can I can always be a for us and what was the way to set it in global city in.

H

In this Serge's Nana in this.

D

L

Ideas he winked.

D

At least we should have a global setting, and then my attribute is that the way to yeah.

B

You can you call it attribute, should.

D

Give basically first-class property on there. Basically.

B

D

Know use annotation booyah, like I, don't have to search for our tubules, like it's very obvious.

A

D

Question now becomes.

A

Like for all the other side of that, the attribute has right like this. Would this would handle anything that you can express as an attitude as a global selling? The other case you would have to promote all of them to properties.

D

A

D

And super common.

A

C

Not saying that it's not enough.

A

I

This one thing you would have to promote them: are you for consistency, I, think you'd wanna promote we're a lot.

B

More than just.

D

But maybe you should do it aren't basically saying like if we choose the default to be pascal case, it will be the wrong default for us all many people right and then they will have to like find the attributes to add an attribute understand how this whole attribute thing works, which, by the way, is not super intuitive in general that I'm calling methods to where the attributes on some options time. Only if you can't find that design well- and you know for this thing- I cannot I have my pocket eyes.

D

I want them to be named as in.net her dotnet conventions, but then my payloads I want them to be family.

D

It's that will be common. Well, you apply there.

B

To bid on the type them I'm not sure at all, though,.

A

The idea is you're a spinet, you don't own the pocos you just want. If somebody serialize is a poco, that it has camelcase Oh Antoinette.

B

Right right, sometimes one line of code to initialize these options right.

A

All I'm saying is that basically I think that I think there's two arguments right I think nobody disagrees so that we should have a global setting. The control casing. I think we all agree with that. Now we're just talking about. What's the mechanical way to express that in the current model, the idea is everything is basic about to be that's why? Which means any setting that you can apply our an attribute.

A

You can also make it a global setting, but just calling this one method now we could say that screw it there's some settings that are way more common than others and we promote them. That's fine! All that means is that now you have two ways of doing it. In other questions like which one takes precedence and all of that right, so the like I will honestly say my care level is low. I agree with you, though, that and one I don't like I, don't like mixing the attribute model with against global state.

A

I guess is that it's not really intuitive that that is the same thing. But but if we have that ability that I think doing like two different things seems to automatic I know.

D

Way to reason about these days it just it's an it, but in dotnet there is no worry to apply an action to everything, but the highest scope you can apply is to an assembly. So like this, this is not super intuitive that you can just apply an attribute. Then it will apply to everything. Yes for.

B

D

The instance of the options.

B

The D attributes, when you add a global glide to the other, is interesting. Okay,.

D

Yeah I only applies to the civilizer instantiate it with these options. Yes, but it deploys to all times.

D

Yes all types of you years with them, I'm saying there is no way indefinite to apply an attribute to all times.

L

Oh I guess: there's nothing video for all times, there's simply level but.

D

Yeah, that's what this.

L

D

So maybe you know we just say like II or controlling the global stage. There are actually properties options, I.

A

Will be okay, that if you remove that method, I think it makes more sense to promote it, but.

D

A

Then actually I will read whatever.

D

Also side effect now they add, attribute metals. I kind of can understand what it does, because, frankly, the first overload that doesn't take anything I feel like unless I read the docs. What it does I would be like so puzzled. You.

H

Know if these were instead of being named an attribute if they were like it was override settings and sadly just any global attribute like attribute says how it works like it doesn't say what doesn't say what you use it for yeah. So.

B

Okay, so if we want to remember you're saying it yet attributes it does make the program model, look, you know a bifurcate right, because now you have your design time. In your run time, we might make usability easier in some ways and more difficult or no.

D

Not just where I mean the order. Derivatives item in your entire design time is I apply an attribute to a bunch of api's. That means I call these methods well.

B

No I meant like if you can't use a design time attribute, for whatever reason um you probably are familiar with the design time attributable, because you can't use it and you have to use again so.

D

B

D

Use them that doesn't mean that you are familiar, for example, I, don't own the dives sure I didn't apply their shoes there. So therefore I don't know anything.

B

About but he's.

D

Probably in general.

B

The preferred models use at least, if you can I mean I I, think few different reasons, and by having attributes there and more or less the same program model to add them at runtime, I think it does prevent you know extra.

B

You know, explosions of options and things like the camel casing you make that a property on the actual options class would have to be like a base class of some option of some kind of converter, because we want to enable people to create their own snake.

D

Casing or whatever, no, this is just a global setting. You can then override it. However, you want using this other okay.

B

So you're saying keep.

D

B

The error attribute I thought. Maybe we were talking about removing that, and you know: okay, he was marionette the man yeah yeah, okay, so I'm. In the same there.

D

Was so we explode for a moment like if we remove this overload that doesn't take anything and basically all global options are applied using regular, strong, you type like the eyes.

A

I mean I think what they say. The question is that, if you look at how people use that should be is right, I think the trend I've seen is like a solace of math.

A

For example, people don't like attributes right, so we would really like convention based configuration, so I think it good chunk of people will try whatever it takes to boil putting attributes on the actual types that would just try to configure all the state that they can buy at this instance, and then just say this is how I want my to look like this. Is the policy I won't avoid I'm.

B

Fine with doing whatever we agree on, but if we wanted to do this I'm tempted to say we have no attributes and it would only have no.

A

I think no I think there's like different schools of thought. All right, some some people say well, my wire format. I, don't want global state. I want everything to be on the class, because then I can reason about what's happening. I don't have to look at two things. The other people say no I will to minimize the lines of code that I write in my in my details.

A

I don't want any attribute said because they're ugly I just want to have a continuation, some essential that says use the policy that I want either I ignore, be the only I don't set them. I've come with case or whatever the thing is, then all my just looks the same way and I think I honestly think so just different ways of doing things I think they are both fine. It just means that you may have customers who will never use attribute, let that might just be so.

D

For example, I'm thinking about these hours.

A

D

We would very strongly prefer not to have an attribute on the modern times, and the reason is that the fact that these things are serialized, this I realize is just an implementation, because when you look at the API, you call something like you know: do something: I will do something, and then you get an object graph and I would wander off the graph to like not have artifacts that are for internal implementation. Detail of us moving bullets per second. So what about the scenario.

E

To see where you want to override a single property, well, this one here is okay. So how do we do that so there to be so.

D

We talked about this, and I would prefer a model where there's a whole bad and basically I get to do some transformations that I want. So by default. You know by different to serialize and just reuse, Park or some convention, and maybe I change the setting that I want to kind of casing to be changed to this or something you know using the options and then for like very fine control. I would prefer to happen kohlberg, and I do whatever I want with the property the property is called for.

D

I can now remake every night to come and cased home bar I just.

E

Want to look at this a bit more so like emo, he said like oh, like both models are good. People will use both models, but we're hearing from I guess be an azure.

G

E

Maybe they attributed tomorrow, isn't for them, so I want to actually poke at what Steve said, which is like you'd be inclined, did not have attribute for right now before everyone yeah exactly for everyone. So you feel it's like it's just stop or not to have attributes. If we go to the model that as you're with the first.

D

We also we talked. We also need this kind of DC realization of immutable object, graphs. Otherwise you cannot use this week or so.

D

But what you can use the serializer sure I guess we could use the civilizer then, when it, when something comes back, we gone what we do today, I'm hoping at the specific way for like teacher grade. If.

B

We want to have an MVP and attributes aren't required, and we want to run time mechanism for a core consumer I think it might make sense, but all attributes we're cutting all attributes well, like I, said, if this is the MVP and we're gonna have a secondary way to do this through runtime, which remain consumer for v1, is anyway in oK.

I

We've taught us our.

B

I

We are out of time so.

B

I didn't see, but would be very keen, but what I mean like you're you're changing the settings already at lean for callable.

H

Right so we change. We change like what we do with today with Jason's on that, as we change camel casing and we change a couple of security settings to be basically secure enough of the web and that's the extent to which we customize and the rest is up to these look, what they want, and they can both customize the global settings that we own and manage, and they can customize their own type. I.

H

Think it's very confusing to like try to provide migration guidance to somebody and say here's your class for JSON dotnet, here's your class for JSON done that where you put the attribute somewhere else in the code, yeah.

A

H

That's what I'm concerned about.

A

I think, like attributes in civilization, are just so standard that I think not having them at all. It seems good over the top, but I mean I would like to see what it would look like, because we also said earlier that, even if you have attributes do we want the programming model on the options class mirror that right, because if you don't have the meat I, presumably have some other way of doing it. That seems more natural in that case, so it would be just seem to just look at it and see like what that.

A

What that would look like.

F

I, my personal preference will be attributes are accompanied them, like asp, net scenarios and a programming model that doesn't ever say the word attribute for doing it programmatically, but I, don't ever not just it at the second one, but it just feels more natural to if I'm trying to configure this at run-time attributes, not matter attributes are just a way to get the run time policy little bit, but I want to add it as a policy, not that.

D

And you know internally, if you want to have a common implementation and you still use attributes, that's fine, but think about it. The following way: I call add, attribute height property and then I pass ignore case. Why would I not just call a method ignore case type property name all.

A

Right, we are out of time unfortunate.

D

It's kind of it seems kind of weird that I have two new up a notch. Eagles I can pass it here just to tell you that I want this property on this time to be ignored.

B

So we're out of time I mean this bifurcation program on.

A

Yeah, like is that, like I mean I would like to just see what it would look like, and that would be to me there they actually I'm. Looking All Right see you guys later.