> On 14 Jun 2017, at 15:01, Christophe Demarey <christophe.dema...@inria.fr>
> wrote:
>
> +1
> It is exactly what i've done with Cargo. Define your own specific object for
> serialization / deserialization. It is the simplest way to have a human
> readable conf file (e.g. urls, pathes default serialization is not what you
> expect)
Maybe Steph can have a look at your approach.
> Christophe
> ----- Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> a écrit :
>> STON cannot be used to write partial, manual output because it needs to see
>> the full object graph (like FUEL does).
>>
>> If I would want to use STON for prettier looking config files, I would make
>> an object just for that external representation, converting it where
>> necessary to better internal objects (like from String to FileReference).
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2017, at 08:58, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sven I know what Ston is :)
>>>
>>> Now Pillar dev used Ston as input and it works. Then with some hooks they
>>> let the user convert the strings
>>> into specific objects and this is ok.
>>> Now I want to add export in Ston and for configurations I need to control
>>> for the application and not as a ston object the value saved.
>>> For example a file reference should not be just a file reference in Ston
>>> but
>>> a string relative the the baseDirectory of the configuration.
>>>
>>> So I thought that I can build a hook and control the call to Ston (convert
>>> the object before to the correct values) and export.
>>> It should be working now doing this I found myself redoing the output of
>>> Ston.
>>> So I will do it. Then I thought that may be I could reuse this logic.
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote:
>>> Stef,
>>>
>>> STON is like FUEL, it can write any object to a stream and read it back.
>>> Although you can customise how this is done, only one way of doing so is
>>> supported (i.e. you cannot change the format for each application).
>>>
>>> People have used STON for various applications now, including for
>>> configuration stuff (because it is a textual format that is easy to read).
>>>
>>> I would suggest you just try to see what your config looks like once you
>>> have the objects in Pharo.
>>>
>>> STON toStringPretty: myConfig.
>>>
>>> Then we can see how to tune the representation.
>>>
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>> On 4 Jun 2017, at 22:58, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi sven
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on a new configuration frameworks similar to the one use
>>>> pillar.conf.
>>>>
>>>> So basically I have
>>>>
>>>> ston := '{
>>>> "newLine":#unix,
>>>> "separateOutputFiles":true
>>>> }'.
>>>> and I want to recreate it.
>>>>
>>>> So I did
>>>>
>>>> Object >> toConfigurationString
>>>>
>>>> ^ STON toString: self
>>>>
>>>> SimpleConfiguration >> exportStream
>>>>
>>>> ^ String streamContents: [ :str |
>>>> str << '{' .
>>>> self propertiesKeysAndValuesDo: [ :key :value|
>>>> str << key toConfigurationString.
>>>> str << ':'.
>>>> str << value toConfigurationString.
>>>> str << ','.
>>>> str lf.
>>>> ].
>>>> str << '}'.
>>>> str contents
>>>> ]
>>>>
>>>> The idea is that for special configuration values people should be able to
>>>> define
>>>> how to go from the object to configuration.
>>>> For example for some FileReference I want to have just the path up to the
>>>> baseDirectory.
>>>>
>>>> Now I wonder if I could not better reuse ston.
>>>> I saw the stonOn:
>>>> but I did not look further because I was wondering how the writer where
>>>> passed.
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback is welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Stef (now bed time).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
