.Net Foundation Design Reviews, 28 Mar 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: .NET Design Review: JSON

Description

00:00:00 - Approved: Build a JsonDocument from an already positioned Utf8JsonReader https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/36148#issuecomment-477696501
00:21:30 - Approved: Utf8JsonWriter and JsonElement, redux https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/36153#issuecomment-477705735

A

Woman can inspect it, inspect it and figure out on what you know helper method. To call on that, you.

B

Mean you notice that there's a property in the payload, you don't have see a lot of times to tell you what's the type of the property, so you basically wanna return. The dog, yeah yeah.

A

We don't wanna guess and in some cases, maybe if it's a true or false, maybe we could but that's TBD having.

B

Said so, having said that, I don't I know that we're not discussing exactly this feature, but it seems that in a lot of cases where I, where they said property in the payload, that I don't have a seal, our property for I kind of just want to round-trip it there for parsing to a dorm is kind of useless work.

B

I may want to basically just round trip between, which means just give me the bytes, so I can like put them back. Gentlemen.

A

Bless you easily round trip it.

B

A

B

So if I, you know, if I want to round trip it, it's easier to just get the bytes and then write about bikes fights back as opposed to creating a dome, especially if that property is like a complex thing. Let's say it's an array kind of expensive to parse it, but.

C

Other needs have come up, such as we've seen places that have there in a reader loop over properties and then one thing in a particular property they want. They want to call a callback right now, they're using the J token API. This is affected by the equipment of the JP token API. So this is when you want to move your control from the reader into the Dom, without figuring out, the byte range that you were operating over and sending those bikes pack it on yourself and.

B

I assumed it would stop when it gets kind of the clothes but yeah.

C

So it reads one value: if you're a string, a true, a false, a null or a number, it doesn't move the reader. If you are a start, object or an end object, sorry start object or a start array. It consumes and it leaves it positioned at the equivalent in if you're, a property name. It first moves forward and then do whatever thing. I just said, and if you haven't ever, if you've created it but never moved it at all, then it moves your.

B

C

B

Their mental Dakota far value not just Paris, to make it clear that I cannot pass out of be Trevor well.

C

B

Didn't take the example.

C

The the current proposed name is read from probably value.

B

From yeah, because, basically, you know read from I, can assume I could assume that you're gonna read, for example, property name and property value if I position Terry there at the property name, and it would fail correct if you're at the property name.

D

It moves that, are you in the read for them? Oh, it does me, so it doesn't fit right, I, see and canary.

B

Some come get the name of their property. You've checked.

C

It before you happen to me again, the cases we've seen for this is that somebody has effectively a switch on the property name and they say. Oh, this is the one that I need to go to the Dom and it was a question of do they need to call Reid and handle the false or or just give it to us in that state. We'll call Reid to move to the value of them. So so then the property case, it's assumed you already knew- was that a property. You already checked the property. So why would.

B

We not basically rename the matter to basically and ends make semantic super crisp. You have to be positioned at the beginning of a value and then, if you at the beginning of the property, you have to first read it on the reader basic consume it, and then because then we can lend a mat of cyrene value and the semantics are super crazy right now the semantics are kind of you have to explain like if you position the devalue. It reads: the value returns to the values in position and the property it consumes.

B

The property doesn't give you this property back. It just gives you the value and like I'm, I'm,.

C

Fine with the asset, a song is the one who so I started with that, not that it was they agreed value, but I started with the you have to you, can't be in a property name and a son showing me that camp the cases that people wanted. This convinced me that they don't want to have to do the extra call to read and deal with the fact that it could return false. They want to just call the API and let the API told him what happened it.

B

Would be interesting to know whether awesome high-quality this has just a convenience and take care or SS from the reason. Then he doesn't want to call one more a method to eat a property. I mean it's, not very property name. It's basically read.

C

Again, I'm I'm fine with we value I'm fine with revalue in the first for this property name.

E

What do other people think.

B

F

That it makes more sense to me like I was originally suggesting. Maybe something like because I think read from verses part seems both like you kind of have to read the fine print. I was thinking, I got partial parse or something like this, but I actually like to read a you know. Maybe you in parts video yeah.

G

Part of the problem is that this behaves the same as skip, so people are familiar with the semantics of a skip: the property name and I'll move to the next value. What's good like to skip one reader, if you wanna skip an x over, it skip the property name and then the van. So this one is skip and read so.

B

Let's skip always skip, skip, probably name see this one doesn't always give.

C

A I'm skip no here skip obvious. This does the same thing as skipped, as is the reader is at the end of the what we called what we were talking about this of the logical value. So if you're, a property and a property name, the logical value is the thing that's coming next and if you're at the natural value, the logical value is the same.

E

So this one is basically skip.

C

Any right it's skip into Dom yeah, so.

B

Why do you, why do I need what do I do? Why don't you just call skip orcas calling skip means you ignored the data. This is you.

C

Want the data is but I know you you it moves if you're at a property name is moves to the next thing and then, if it's a value, it stays there and if it's a array or an object, it then keeps going until it hits the end of that object or way.

C

F

C

Property game so.

F

We going what crystal suggested the current behavior. If you just compare this between, skip and read from they're, both doing the exact same positioning, except that one of them returns: division on them, yeah.

C

So, if you're cold, if you call read from and didn't and ignored the return of this, it's the same as if you called scam on the reader. All.

F

We could just go with skip value and we do them and it's like. Oh, it makes a decision what you won't even do it or not, yeah and honestly, at that point, I personally wouldn't care whether it's good to puppet a name or not, but you can just say well, if you call we debate, you know on the property like what we just skip to the baby or neck. That seems still trying to me like. Why do you wanna call it a.

G

Value, so this value is overloaded right because.

F

I mean if you look at so I think for skip it may not matter, but I. Think for what you call this one, because I think reach from versus versus parse like this. What's the difference, they.

B

Want to encode in the name that it only reach one value and also that you know I'm basically coming case to you, where you should position there either.

G

In the natural position of the reader is I'm reading, something in my blue I'm reading something I hit a property which identify some some Pharaoh, it's already populated by a force, the user to say, skip the property name. Now what if the user is seeing this sure I'm.

B

Saying I look at the ETI and from the signature today. I have no idea what I can pass as the reader.

B

G

Pass any plane.

B

G

If you explain to me yes about meet the concentration.

B

G

B

That's not obvious from this ignition.

C

Well, I'm gonna did endure a that if.

B

You're inside an American.

C

Are inside in every little read: won't, are you and everything it'll throw that doesn't make any sense.

B

Yeah, that's my point: it's not clear from the signature. What works, what doesn't one state of the reader doesn't? Does it if the method was called, you know, read value yeah, I kind of would assume that I have.

G

To put it before that value, but does that add more confusion, because green value could mean just primitive Jason values, string, number bull, ridin, Ranger, sorry, Jason value and object is adjacent army, but we call it. Some value has been over here just element, which means a reader element. There also works. It's no he's got a good Guardian generic right. We had no idea, they talk about values, them call. It element.

F

Any objection to parse Elam.

B

We need element from it's just basically, the method on the reader is called read nothing. You would have basically two terms for the same thing.

C

I mean the read uses the standard. This is going to have a side effect on the thing that its operating on oh.

B

But it's so this is, this is the reader. This is the concept, I, don't know yeah. What do we call the method on Dom, surprise.

C

But you always give it the text string, whether its beauty, a big bite, sir there's.

F

No state effectively right, there's no right yeah but I mean quite frankly, how would I think for God like a thing in in the.net framework, it's mostly parses, stateless Rita was I. Think everything else is silly called video mode. Well,.

B

The constructor orders the static method based on document that parse is not stable.

F

It doesn't alter any of your input. Yeah state is in the sense that it doesn't advance any sort of coarser, because you deal with data there's no cursor that is modified as a side effect of you parsing and if we ever add a 1600 sorry, we have a straight one I change. This.

C

Or doesn't because it.

B

Kills me yes, well.

A

The sensor type using different.

B

Terminology, read and parse is kind of a bit weird. Unless one can explain what the difference is well caught. One person.

C

One week right and right now the difference is this: API does a single value and the other API is assumed that the contents are giving them are, or do represent only a single value and they throw if there's a if there's a value after the value.

B

The nation is too long, it's more than one sentence. It doesn't pass the bar this.

C

Reads the value the others insurer, a single value, so the others were single, and this is first.

F

Yeah, like the in eczema, the naming convention is pretty consistent. That passing is only context. Load is always from something that you advance and then for the reader like they call it. We because of the whole leader structures. Again, obviously DVD I mean you could go with load or we could just go ooh. It's close enough and I think one of the reasons why even with your entomology and framework is, if you have a method that takes a string, is unclear whether that's a path or whether that's the actual content.

F

So that's where you say positive little bit, string a little. What you want it to do.

F

Ya know from your eye or from you know, like I, mean personally I I think we should just pick one but I, don't think we need to be necessarily consistent of XML but I said ultimate epistle, like you know, let's just pick a convention here and then just stick to that. There's a bit of weird to have both on the same type that we do it for sure.

G

So what we think you read element from there ends up returning a document. Why.

B

Don't we return the element.

C

Document is document. Is the disposable thing elements you don't you from an element you can't get back to the doctor. Now limits is just a first.

C

Right and that's the problem with putting the word element than it is we're not returning an element which are right. Okay could.

F

You would turn down the middle right because and then something exists in I. Don't.

C

Have anything right, I can make the document it and then only return document I relevant and you just can't see the document. There's.

B

No back burner from the element to the document. Nothing to expose then hold the reference.

C

That would be a different thing that we're going to. We can close on this one which is may play this in this case. Having non-disposable document.

G

In this case, if you want to return an element that who owns the reference for this particular, you can only write.

C

This is like, which would mean it would need to be the GC tractor, not the or they need to be GC back to not pull that. So.

H

I hadn't done Morse.

C

F

So, looking at the api's now I see they're part of streaming parts of string, it might be read back. We.

C

Can we have a chip, we can you name it I would.

F

Probably rename that one that take screen to load and then, if you ever want to offer one that takes a path became I, don't know if it could be able to do the.

C

Load and load value and trial value that works. For me, give me this.

I

One you go both on yeah, so, like you look at the existing you guys, this is what we have.

G

That doesn't lower convey to the reader States moving. Let's.

F

Tie see what we did an external flex, and always it says when you say load on a document, you pass a stream or you pass a file path. Ours is always just the data there's no, but.

B

So we must imagine some at some point he had triremes from overall that takes a span now we call it low like by with that one. Yes, we have.

G

Maybe I already have that by the crab, the J, so we have manic parts right that would continue to be called ours, because that's the data they really span really memory or by I think.

F

You I think you would end up with saying you would say the node prefix, for when you have a cursor, you would use the parse. If you don't have a cursor and then you base the suffix it with element or not. If it's partial or not, so we don't remove.

B

This one is now I, don't know this convention and now I have to like checking intelligence in two different places, whether you take the data type that I got. You know I chemistry, okay, which method should I use to place it. We get the freaking data out of my stream and in to digest your document parts Oh No, so first busy 18th of the Paris, is not consuming. Okay, somehow that each I, the other one well.

F

But I'd like go to go the other way but say you want to have a convenience API that just given a car that with the doctor, how would you do that?

F

Okay, so let's say you want to add a convenience overlooking the stream one. It just takes a file path. How would you do that today.

F

Yeah, so they said you want to say yeah, we have to sit in the femoral right, X, X document, dot, blah and you give it a path and just meets the content of the file. How would you add that API here?

F

Because you basically say logically, it's lovullo to parse, but there's one that stream there's one that takes file path well, except the one that takes string is parsing the contents of the string, it's not using it as a father, oh I, see what you say and that isn't thing, but the fabric went with load for load for other things, and everything else is part.

F

So in that sense, it's unfortunate that string is ambiguous right because if you don't know what it would have, what it represent, but.

B

Yeah, so exactly so, we have kind of Jonathan because string is overloaded. We would now complicate the API well.

F

You would be consisted of XML, you could argue, but I honestly, like yeah. If you want to close the door on me, never expose the path. Calling everything parse is also fine, and then we could add our.

B

Swim paths or something like I, think the barrier is larger, with all these metal. Basically, I have something that I I want to parse it. I have to go, I, go to one place in intelligence and I. Just try to pass my thing sure so so parse all the existing parts to say.

C

Parts including the spring one, either parts or not, and then and then this becomes parse value and try to parse value, indicate that it's there's a single thing. Instead of the whole thing and.

F

We all capable of a you, because we don't like element because we can return element yeah yeah, that's for me. Oh, that means million.

C

Lines and maybe I definitely reads a value. Then we can later decide how we feel about property.

B

So we really like, in other places in ideas by me specifically means definitely.

C

So the only places with Jason right now that uses the word value is the Dom. It has an enum called. The reader has Jason token type code for the Dom. We add adjacent value type indicate what type the value is. So that does give the notion that an element is a value. Oh, okay, okay, so we are consistent with.

C

C

Of where the writer ones.

G

And then we can get to the ones I actually.

A

G

No, it isn't if, in the future, we gotta grieve, you skip again, should we changed if on the reader, to skip value to match this.

G

Right now we call it a skip because dishonor I call skip, and everyone understands the skips on my dates. Except I. Don't understand it. So not everybody so.

H

Everybody who use it just never.

G

Understands description, I think it's a comment.

C

Because I'm gonna need it: yes, ass on and I, like 20 minutes, dueling on a white board before we understand James amendment.

G

No, it doesn't I think.

C

That you actually expect, which is not in America reward yeah if you're in a loop it it. It makes sense. Okay,.

C

All right, three, six one, five, three really.

J

C

D

C

Second yeah hi, Mike I thought you were just gonna take if you wanna put you head back to the list. Okay, on a proposal before the writer actually existed. When we were adding the Dom we we suggested that the writers should be able to.

A

C

After the writer existed.

J

F

Really yeah, it says my cabinets do the other one. This is a dress. All.

I

C

So once the writer existed and- and they were being hooked up- that it was felt that it was a layering inversion to have to write and understand the elements and that the element should understand the writer. So this is moving those right methods on to element and right to and right value to, are sort of matching the right and right value or matching the readers definition of property versus not a property. And the two is because yeah I take a destination in a bit modified.

B

Take some elements right to like.

B

Oh it advances, it basically gets the property name from the element. Well,.

C

This is you what you want to write the current element as this property game Oh to the later? What if the current element is a problem element can't be a property element, is a value. Property is a property.

C

If you want to write a property, well, property element or property, not valued, that right, too writer and company. My.

G

Property tax has been a good morning.

B

So element yep can be an object.

C

D

Is an object, an array, a true or false, a normal string or number. So basically, you select the property with the given name.

C

In the right direction, well, you select the value that you want to write it and you write it to the writer with the given name. The name I had in the incoming payload is irrelevant.

C

You have about you you're, looking at an object, I, don't care what your name, the local.

B

I see what you're saying the element here is, the funny I see do I have to say: I was looking at the signature of this method, and I was thinking that each element is a complex object. You cannot select a property given the parameter and write it to the rider tonight. The value of the strategy right.

B

It writes the value of this property to the writer, and you know it's not really any search it. Doesn't it yeah? It was not that it's not super. That was not super active to me. I, don't know if the problem that other people don't have. What do we want to solve it or not? But it's not super this from the signature. Okay doesn't matter which which, which.

G

Of these two options you doing, does it happy feel you are the parameters and has a problem come forth.

B

I, don't know it's hard, I, don't know how to change the method name which me I, don't think it's the order of their.

C

Okay, ladies I really make an extension method off the writer in the same assembly. That essentially puts it back to what the previous thing was, but it's yeah.

B

You see the previous ones make it's like. They basically looks over here. What's going on, why do we care what the nari.

G

Reid and I are the lowest layer. The.

I

Writers will not be depending on the document shimmer in.

G

The same and stemming so why do we care? It is a presidental just a pleasure of the tide, receptors or.

F

Affinity assembly well, I, don't know why we would ever care that he will not ship the donor separate from the reader writer. So why would we care that therefore dependent on each other, but.

G

The thing is now your tactical de right into the element, and now the writing needs to know internally to the relevant and document like now. It's.

F

A different argument: I would say that looking at the API is it would really. These ABI is a clearer than the other ones and I think I, don't know layering to me makes sense it because assembly about it is it doesn't make any sense of elements anyway, I think a way to ship them is individual unit. I.

K

Think it makes sense even with them in December, because it allows better refactoring later without breaking things. You don't less. You want that a couple of these components. What would you change I mean like, for example, stream is exists in the same assembly as everything else with correlate, but we wouldn't want to immerse the layering there and have stream have intricate knowledge of all the types.

K

Instead, we have everything take a stream, and then they can use the stream write their data as they see fit without having to without stream how we have a new day in German.

B

But I mean there is a balance. I mean I I, agree with you, because you know there are some times that are very different in terms of whether they are high level low level. For example, I will definitely not think a dependency from the writer to the serialize. There is a good dependence, but despite the fact that they are in the same assembly, I wonder whether the DOM and the writer on it are not close enough that we would treat it sweep them as a single feature. I think it's the.

K

Thing where, if everyone else in the universe is going to have to do it this way, then we should probably be exposing it this way as well, because then it's fewer concepts for people to remember I what if we called them right as value and right as property.

C

That's as ads, so it's indicating it's not doing a search and again I went with these names because it matches what's on the writer. But if we want to look at it as what would make sense for the element, instead of what makes sense for the writer, then maybe maybe write as value at his property.

B

You I think it will improve I still like that Twitter's API, much better I'm, using the right that I want to write staff I end up having a e, an element because I just read it from somewhere I want to write it. I would kind of never think about. Coming back to the element like.

G

This this specialization or net has similar if he has to maybe have industry an element which is the J token, takes the rider and say I'd like to write it here to this way, which is again the holy inversion leading my vision. Has it that way, honesty.

F

From a usability standpoint, if we really really care about the layering, it might make the next up to nothing. Usability is so much better like in this. So critical, read code, you say, writer, dot, Rypple are white flour, white blood, all of the sudden, its baseline, lemon thought. Wife is a writer. It's like what happened. It makes it than UV code. Okay,.

C

I mean that's again to take banners arguing with stream right you're, like stream, that right stream that right and then some other thing not right, and then you give it the stream yeah. But.

F

Nobody close right on the stream I know.

K

It's it's the people who are doing the internals with stream. They take the stream. They do the writing that way. That way, users don't have to it's just the layering that that all these things have that way, you don't have.

F

I'm saying the Amana limiters that actually call right on the stream became calm them on two hands effectively. I think they. If you look at the normal usability of every writer in the world, you call writer dog right, like that's how everybody that the world works, which is why, if you care about layering, so I did the same thing. When I have my own data structures that I want to ride to a text writer or might.

A

F

Just add an extension method where that, like I, can edit rule II call wider door right customer because it just reads much nicer. So if we care a lot that we don't want to have his API some, neither great than this and an extension five somewhere, but these guys live. But it seems very inverted to go to the element and say write yourself over here, like that's just not only well your.

G

Example, though, your city interleaving bodies, right calls baked element or dragon hello use cases, its I have an element. Someone gave to me, I'm alright, to the right and that's all I'm doing I do not doing anything else, but rather sure.

F

I still think it's eloquent witty to do this way, but yeah. If you only call one method, that is not too bad. I agree that I.

C

Mean we can certainly do both. We could follow it right as value and right as property here and then add adjacent element, extensions that lets you do it as a what looks like a writer extension or writer application not worth it and also.

B

Also, the usability argument, this weaker I have to say because I mean you: don't we don't shoot for usability for the day, something reader writer that's fair, so, but there I think we are in this particular case. I. Don't know why I would want to create a guideline on the fly and I. Don't know why this layering thing doesn't bother me at all.

G

But the concern is: if you have separate components, one component: we should not treat one component invisible to the other by tightly coupling them, you're hurting the material of the implementation. Okay, what do you mean by visible in.

C

Fact the only way is so. What is if we were to do it, because we've decided so one of the questions that came up while designing this to talk about feature a little bit is Jason element which has a pointer.

C

There has the ability to say this was my input stream just take the stream as it was and copy it into the writer, or should it observe the writer settings with regards to indentation versus minimization and escaping rules once we figure out all that and what we said is it makes more sense to say that they don't know about each other and that it will do it sort of token by token, so that the writer liked, the fact that you went from element in the middle means that you still end up consistently pretty printed or consistently compact, and it does expect a something: the user.

C

This is the only one that make sense. Yeah.

G

So what has the other case? We.

C

Reach backwards and ask element like start walking through all of your things piece by piece and the best way that we can do that is element, can walk its structure linearly without having to go the location of these methods of it. Symmetric security, yeah.

D

C

Just saying like, technically speaking, the internal implementation, if we put it on the writers, the writers going to turn out a call, an internal method on element which is this method. Yes,.

K

And you've got a most proposals, make these extension methods that way the extension class. Yes has the internal knowledge, but it's still exposed on the writer. Well,.

C

The element at the end of the day, the elements, the only thing that actually no satellite itself of the writer.

B

Frankly, I think the them knowing about each other is actually a benefit. What I will do is if the setting on the writer is pretty trained, then we do it element by element. Otherwise we have a fast count path and we'll just grab the paler than coffee. It's perfect, but now the.

G

Concern that is going to be anything inconsistent, formatting, okay, right so I, yeah I, don't know it that be surprising, I think if someone was right minimized and the payload is in article format and they'd say: okay, I'm not I, said in that little group. What do they get? You know they mean like if the payload is.

B

Actually, for example, indented but I said that I don't want suddenly I have some interests in the middle.

G

It doesn't use a quotation, though this is the only thing that's this key doesn't make sense based on what is that another one is more easy to use, yes interval discoverability, and it makes another rider but yeah. So it's not.

B

Only easy to use and what I was proposing is fast, correct, like if I have a massive JSON that I want to just man copy, and it is that it.

C

Passage of DNA, but it can violate a lot of the writer right now by default, to make sure that everything is transportable on an ascii string instead of a utf-8 stream and the element, if it had. If utf-8 data came in and we did, the blip, it would write, you can take data out, which means that your writer, without you, configuring it to tell it utf-8, is actually safe, is now mixing ascii escaping and PTFE. Well,.

B

But we don't know what the source on the element was good. What.

C

Doesn't know what has really it doesn't know if it was I mean it knows whether something was escaped or not. It doesn't pay attention to whether or not it was utf-8 or asking oh just utf-8 to this okay kind of would have to assume you see a thing, but at which point it has to call the escape or anyway, which one it has to do a total bite okok. So you.

B

Saying because in in the Jason element the payload could mean that escape. Yes,.

D

Really hoo-wee non-validated we support reading utf-8, we don't validate it when we build the database No, oh yeah. We also relieve evaluate it's illegal. You keep a tree.

C

He just validates that, like the quotes were in the right place and there were some bikes in the middle.

B

So we consumed potentially valid JSON. You.

G

Know the genome valid you're Jason strings could continue. Mary could contain non decodable sequence.

B

Then will you copy it? You know it's fine. Yeah I mean anyway they're. Going back to the light. I I think that this layering I don't see a much partying, I I think to be clear and I said: I haven't I know it's about ATI dependencies. If.

F

If there's an issue, a unique incomes visible to to implement thing, that's that's not gonna buy much more about API X depends on API to below communicative. A public API is I care. You know.

C

Just in you can just play devil's advocate here: we've had a bunch of things in a mess correlated framework where it's like sure. It makes sense that these things we want to talk to each other and then, when we move decor, we went man. We needed to drive a wedge between these two things, because they really made no sense that not because they were separate teachers yeah.

C

So then the question is: is the Dom a separate feature from the reader and writer or is become an extension to the reader right agree and that's a fuzzy area of it right? Yon believes no we're stuck please. Yes. Well.

B

I, don't know whether be honest, so Yanis come is concerned with this unsafety correcting.

A

B

He bought it, but why does he consider them separate features because he sees one is safe for that kind of end-user for everybody and one he wants to make it unsafe and stick it in.

B

Compiler services I.

K

Think this is more question and every time stuff like this and comes up it's it's more is. Is this current layering going to prevent us from making changes in the future if needed, and the top layering can often prevent that or make you have to make bad.

K

B

Because it dependency on stream, yep yep, would you like, if you were designing the bathrooms of scratchy, would not have it well.

K

That that's a very, very hot topic argument that lots of people have opinions on.

E

Because of dependency on a culture uniform right, no and.

K

Yeah, it does know it has a dependency on I format provider. It does not have any dependency on globalization correctly.

B

Not okay, maybe something gets removed. Last time we analyzed it. It was a hard dependency. Well.

K

Maybe our internal imitation does, but the public contract is that machine ohms. It's already.

B

Grossing over the details, there are some teachers in a mess, call it by totally agree with school ah the transitive closure dependency. A number of types from object is like 700, less than lives.

B

With this analysis, and it's way too much, but you can surely you probably agree that we don't want, like they say at some point, when we would kind of over design it and kind of try to break every single type in the framework to just be a very clean three we have circular dependencies yeah except it's not refined, as well as the things considered right right, but.

K

I think in this case this is a very normal pattern for splitting dependencies like this, so that you don't have that circular dependency and it's just a common pattern. It's not like we're saying this is something new we should do because we think there's a problem we're instead saying this is a common pattern that people do to answer this specific thing: I, guess: here's the easy question.

C

Since, since you're now on, a team fits in a completely separate code base from this, if you had a custom type that you wanted to write, are you going to write an extension method to make it look like it's right thing on the writer or you gonna, take make ready right to that. You passed the writer intake if I could what time. So you have some type in the answer. Sdk, you want to send it to a writer. You make a public method on that type.

C

That takes a writer, or do you make a new extension class I? Will.

B

C

This because my.

B

Sdk type is not the same features that either so it's consistent with my fairy-like.

C

But would you take the writer as an input, or would you make an extension that didn't make it look like a extension on the right, I.

B

Would probably take a writer unless you guys.

L

Right so yeah so to.

C

Me that means the problem that these should be just methods on Jason element, because it's it's just a thing built on top of the reader and writer I, guess part of it.

G

Is the dish never knows how to write itself, so it is the determination if the material medium, that is natural location point otherwise, there's a core smell where the writer is reaching into the internal components of the element all over the place. I'll give you a limited for that matter. If I'm.

B

Seeing them they are one feature very stone element is our writers, representation of the body, because otherwise it's an untyped, a presentation, likes pants and strings and whatnot it's basically a tight diaper sensation of the taste environment.

B

Those I just feel like philosophies of Kanye enter so.

B

I thought we can okay, it's.

E

A repayment these.

J

B

Think is fine. I would prefer that what we have today, if we rename the methods to write as and give the property name to first, it will be so.

C

So if it stays local, you think right right has value and write as property come in, but the property lady first.

C

And then consider making it over loads of right and right value from the writing. Okay,.

B

And that I will give you another argument for leaving them, as is on the right.

B

The writer is hard to use now we're polluting an IDI like a vertical convenient API with a type that is not super community.

B

Basically, there are lots of scenarios where I just want to use JSON, DOM and suddenly you're kind of showing some JSON the writer API step. I, really, you know I'm as a user, maybe I don't care about.

B

Versus if I heard them in the writer world I'm like I'm, a some advanced I'm doing some intense stuff, I I, probably know what Jason element is and how they relate.

G

So I as part of the counter to that would be if someone sporting today's internet, this API is easier to use easier. Finding.

B

G

B

I will use the deceiver like.

G

How many people used to write there soon? No, because if you don't have proper object, you have it already. This is a sin. Element is the coordinate.

C

B

You had the J token okay, here you take some writer I will do some writers for maintenance scenario, users who don't have poker objects that we better do what the honest suggests. Let's the knowledge number to this type was originally designed an impatient to be very low-level type for performance, oriented scenario. I, don't think we should be trying to make it now. Oh it's there.

G

Like if justice utilize, it doesn't work for you, can we decouple those discussions to unlock this? If you have data API will have level effects. That is not an always it. It might become block on it.

G

For signalized.

C

Use case, which is the mini to separately.

G

Be a bar together and we have now talked about the two things you care about right. Yes, you know you don't need to detach so what new land you'll be just cool with what he discussed n consider, adding the extension method or it's just not right. Okay,.

C

As the current, only user of this API, which one do you think, makes more sense, I.

M

Wouldn't use the property one at all, because we just use the writer for the property so right, this value to is fine for us yeah, that's right as they do one thing just.

G

Yeah, that's what we said. What there's.

M

Other issues with Dave.

C

But would you look for it on there? Do you think it to you? Does it feel more natural on the writer or on the element.

M

Probably the elements, because we're already gonna have the element for the value of that array. So it'd be kind of weird to go back to the writer.

M

B

That's where do you know when you have an element and the right there somehow and just like the element element.

C

Came from input, the writers, what he's trying.

M

To picked is the attendant I mean bytes from the serializer to go into the writer. So there's no way to do that without going through all of them.

C

But he really wants his Jason serialize we're not right to get writer. Yes, this is a stopgap. Yes, for that also, it's also gonna be for people.

G

This is the this is the morning today, but it's not only.

G

C

We can do the we can start the the rabble discussion on the the final one that I am they.

B

Are related, they are related, imagined that we basically we move this type to some unsafe thing, as Janos proposal. Well,.

G

We're gonna have some unsafe a be ice on our adjacent, but are.

B

C

By the information.

G

In the city, because it's tacky coupling yeah yeah, it's just there.

C

If, if we do that like, if we, if we make it like dangerous utf-8, Jason writer, with literally no validation as the new name of it, then then I would agree, and we should rip them off up here and move them there or move them to an extension method or something that like gets it off of me. I would prefer today, okay.

B

In that word you, if we don't do it, let's, let's say we don't do it. You just said it still doesn't change the fact that this type is not super super safe. Again, that's Monday's, meeting I'm saying in which world we're gonna end up in a situation where this Jason right there is just like awesome type for in the average Jason that net user, who wants to write something.

G

B

G

Goal of the Monday meeting you.

B

G

B

G

Either with a you should own a Strider, let's say that's what the Tigers now this API should live here, but you should domination limit. Are these urban types? You have a usable, get right.

H

B

G

So if you decide to have a usable, Jason writer type, then this idea will just change, but you still live here. You just take money for just change for media pages. Rather this ref drop something.

B

May, let's, let's give you advantage of this but I'm saying this: I, don't see a world where this becomes a safe.

I

Well, okay, but that why does it matter so let's say it's a let's say it would be insanely if you are good that video right location there, but that's not.

B

My question: if it was safe again, yeah.

I

C

B

Stand behind my I'm.

A

B

That it's not end of the world. If it's, if it's kind of unsaved and I, think it you know, moves it several notches up to like yeah. That's not the right design.

G

Which, while saying the best higher-order thing which affected his life, but if let's say it going that is there okay and as popular to put this here, yo Mike I. Think it's okay, because.

C

I know we all have two minutes, but I want to get a quick glance at the one that actually needs serious help on names. Okay,.

F

Me just remove this one friend actually.

F

L

C

My clarity can clarity, control the one go all right, so Jason document, if you give it a memory of bite it holds, it holds the memory of bite instead of copying the membrane. That's why it's there part of them quiet, slow and then it uses a ring pool for the database structure. That has the fact that uses a rate pool is why it's disposable so that you can put the stuff clear and put stuff back in the pool.

C

It also has modes where, if you give it things that it has to convert, because it currently doesn't understand them such as strings that it uses in a red pool to hold the intermediate copy, there are notions that you want to be able to say. I need this to now live longer than the original, using. What's going to move me to a different kind of memory model and we're calling that detached, which is you want to detach from the original input memory detach then has the notion, or so there are really two questions with detaches.

C

Are you trying to detach from the array pools and you want to be GC back? Are you trying to detach from the original input memory, and this has created the notion- this has created a slightly confusing thing and then there is I, have an element and I want to just pluck this element out of the document and forget the rest of the document. Let it get this post but hold on to only the small subsets.

B

So the element I totally understand is tsunami on ie I think it's super funny. Oh I, don't understand that they touch on document if I knew that I want to detach I just copy before I pass through the the memory.

C

I mean this the the cases, and this would be that you only come out after inspection. What.

G

Will they find oh hi? Now, let's say you have a component is Boston in data. It brings it in document now. I have give it to some other component rather than we improving lifetime. I said now I've, given the ownership to the other important, because when.

C

Addiction, whatever think it is more later.

G

So somebody, if.

C

You pass the document to someone and they wanted to store it for later. They should store it, yeah I'm going to be attached and not that not the original vacuum.

F

What would detach.

L

Do when the in.

C

Severity is the catch if.

L

C

It's detached and using array pools. That means it's still disposable, so it copies itself into memory pools again and gives you a new copy. If it's detached and you told it don't- deserve a pools and you all right, you called you catch on a thing. That's already not using the array pool it returns this. You have pure DC semantics and there's a.

C

Reason that this really needs help is because the two properties exposing the current thing that I've come up with attached one's called this detached is called, is disposable. So.

B

I still kind of not I'm, not sure whether that person area is so variable, but as to the name would could only make sense. You know clone is kind of like it's already existing concept in that net and it basically is kind of like you know. You may have deep low. It's now mine on the.

C

Document cuz, I think on elemental, I think on element detach makes sense. It's like I'm. Take me out of the document. Linemen make me be a new thing on my myself. It's.

B

A new term that we don't have this possible and clone. This is an existing one and we saw a difference.

F

We're a clone make sense to make copy would also make sense. To me I mean the question is like for detached right like if you take a copy, it would imply, you always copy. Clone kinda implies you always clone, but if you say, if it's already detached should just give you back to this pointer, then it's you know. That's.

K

Actually not new, we also use it in XML yeah.

G

Really, yes, we.

F

K

F

These those Almir, so we have to clean.

K

It up, we got an XML service model, and now we figuration managers guys.

F

K

For XML it looks like.