[Accepted] SE-0166: Swift Archival & Serialization


(Douglas Gregor) #1

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager


(Riley Testut) #2

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

···

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Tony Parker) #3

Hi Riley,

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

···

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Anders) #4

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Apparently the proposal is not updated yet. `EncodingError` and `DecodingError` enums were said to be added as part of the move to the Standard Library.
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170417/036001.html

Regards,
Anders

···

On 26 Apr 2017, at 9:11 AM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Riley Testut) #5

Apparently the proposal is not updated yet. `EncodingError` and `DecodingError` enums were said to be added as part of the move to the Standard Library.
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170417/036001.html

Regards,
Anders

Ah thanks, glad to hear this!

···

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Anders Ha <hello@andersio.co> wrote:

On 26 Apr 2017, at 9:11 AM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Apparently the proposal is not updated yet. `EncodingError` and `DecodingError` enums were said to be added as part of the move to the Standard Library.
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170417/036001.html

Regards,
Anders

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Shawn Erickson) #6

Can you ping the list when aspects of this work lands in master? I have
real world code that I want to see how this new stuff shakes out when
attempting to use.

···

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:24 AM Tony Parker via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing
NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason
for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that
this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still
using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but:
why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int,
Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new
Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol
implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms
to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many
formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for
example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete
types.

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it
was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be
landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great
chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s
final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Proposal Link:
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April
6...12, 2017. The proposal is *accepted* with some minor modifications.
Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift
standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and
compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data”
type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more
detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

- Doug
Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Goffredo Marocchi) #7

Hi Riley,

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

···

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Tony Parker) #8

Here are the pull requests to cc yourself on:

The compiler and standard library part:

https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/9004

The Foundation part:

https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/9005

- Tony

···

On Apr 26, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Shawn Erickson <shawnce@gmail.com> wrote:

Can you ping the list when aspects of this work lands in master? I have real world code that I want to see how this new stuff shakes out when attempting to use.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:24 AM Tony Parker via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Itai Ferber) #9

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything `Encodable` can encode any type that is `Encodable` as a nested value:

struct Person : Codable {
     let name: String
     let address: Address
}

struct Address : Codable {
     let street: String
     let city: String
     let state: String
     let zipCode: Int
     let country: String
}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States")
let person = Person(name: "John Doe", address: address)

let encoder = JSONEncoder()
let payload = try encoder.encode(person)
print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder = JSONDecoder()
let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)

Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

···

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Goffredo Marocchi) #10

Hello Itai,

Sorry for the confusion, but I understood that the following

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

meant it would actually hinder that kind of transformation or make it more difficult to write custom decoders and encoders. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

One follow up question: what would happen if inside the JSON mock object you posted I were to remove the 'address' key (in terms of the produced object and how to access its inner properties)?

What would happen if I remove the 'name' one or better if I add another key to the JSON object?

···

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 21:28, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything Encodable can encode any type that is Encodable as a nested value:

struct Person : Codable {
    let name: String
    let address: Address
}

struct Address : Codable {
    let street: String
    let city: String
    let state: String
    let zipCode: Int
    let country: String
}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States")
let person = Person(name: "John Doe", address: address)

let encoder = JSONEncoder()
let payload = try encoder.encode(person)
print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder = JSONDecoder()
let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)
Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Itai Ferber) #11

Hi Goffredo,

Hello Itai,

Sorry for the confusion, but I understood that the following

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

meant it would actually hinder that kind of transformation or make it more difficult to write custom decoders and encoders. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

One follow up question: what would happen if inside the JSON mock object you posted I were to remove the 'address' key (in terms of the produced object and how to access its inner properties)?

What would happen if I remove the 'name' one or better if I add another key to the JSON object?

Codable conformance is derived by default to require that all non-optional properties be initialized. This means that if you have a non-optional property address: Address but there is no address key in the JSON payload you're decoding from, it will throw an error to indicate that the key was not found.
On the flip side, if the JSON payload has information in it which your type does not have (e.g. if there is an address in the JSON, but your Person just has name), the extra data is ignored.

This, however, is just in the default, derived conformance. For more complex cases, you can always provide your own init(from:) and encode(to:) to do custom decoding. If you have a property which may or may not be in the JSON, you can always decodeIfPresent, which will return nil if the key or value was not found.
If you need to access sub-objects in the JSON data which do not map to your properties 1-to-1, e.g. your payload looks like {"name": "John Doe", "address": { "street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }, but your type looks like
struct Person {
    let name: String
    let street: String
    let city: String
    // ...
}
then you can always access the nested data by requesting a nestedContainer(keyedBy: ..., forKey: .address) which will return a container wrapping the address sub-object, which you can then pull fields out of.

The derived conformance case gives a reasonable default, but you can always write your own init(from:) and encode(to:) to handle custom needs.

···

On Apr 26, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <panajev@gmail.com> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 21:28, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com <mailto:iferber@apple.com>> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything Encodable can encode any type that is Encodable as a nested value:

struct Person : Codable {
    let name: String
    let address: Address
}

struct Address : Codable {
    let street: String
    let city: String
    let state: String
    let zipCode: Int
    let country: String
}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States")
let person = Person(name: "John Doe", address: address)

let encoder = JSONEncoder()
let payload = try encoder.encode(person)
print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder = JSONDecoder()
let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)
Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Jon Shier) #12

FYI, I’d give the derived implementations a very low chance of ever being used for JSON. Unless developers violate the Swift naming guidelines for their properties at least or they don’t have properties with multiword keys.
  Once this functionality has landed for the Swift 4 branch, I plan to implement some of the tricky JSON types I had to decode on a recent project, just to see how painful the custom syntax will be, and to compare it to my existing Argo implementation. Hopefully there will be time for at least one round of feedback to be integrated into this functionality.

Jon

···

On May 1, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

On Apr 26, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <panajev@gmail.com <mailto:panajev@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Itai,

Sorry for the confusion, but I understood that the following

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

meant it would actually hinder that kind of transformation or make it more difficult to write custom decoders and encoders. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

One follow up question: what would happen if inside the JSON mock object you posted I were to remove the 'address' key (in terms of the produced object and how to access its inner properties)?

What would happen if I remove the 'name' one or better if I add another key to the JSON object?

Codable conformance is derived by default to require that all non-optional properties be initialized. This means that if you have a non-optional property address: Address but there is no address key in the JSON payload you're decoding from, it will throw an error to indicate that the key was not found.
On the flip side, if the JSON payload has information in it which your type does not have (e.g. if there is an address in the JSON, but your Person just has name), the extra data is ignored.

This, however, is just in the default, derived conformance. For more complex cases, you can always provide your own init(from:) and encode(to:)to do custom decoding. If you have a property which may or may not be in the JSON, you can always decodeIfPresent, which will return nil if the key or value was not found.
If you need to access sub-objects in the JSON data which do not map to your properties 1-to-1, e.g. your payload looks like {"name": "John Doe", "address": { "street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }, but your type looks like
struct Person {
    let name: String
    let street: String
    let city: String
    // ...
}
then you can always access the nested data by requesting a nestedContainer(keyedBy: ..., forKey: .address) which will return a container wrapping the address sub-object, which you can then pull fields out of.

The derived conformance case gives a reasonable default, but you can always write your own init(from:) and encode(to:) to handle custom needs.

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 21:28, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com <mailto:iferber@apple.com>> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything Encodable can encode any type that is Encodable as a nested value:

struct Person : Codable {
    let name: String
    let address: Address
}

struct Address : Codable {
    let street: String
    let city: String
    let state: String
    let zipCode: Int
    let country: String
}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States")
let person = Person(name: "John Doe", address: address)

let encoder = JSONEncoder()
let payload = try encoder.encode(person)
print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder = JSONDecoder()
let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)
Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Anders) #13

I thought it would be quite trivial to have the JSON encoder and decoder transforming the keys between camel case and snake case, wouldn't it?

Regards
Anders

···

On 2 May 2017, at 1:57 AM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

  FYI, I’d give the derived implementations a very low chance of ever being used for JSON. Unless developers violate the Swift naming guidelines for their properties at least or they don’t have properties with multiword keys.
  Once this functionality has landed for the Swift 4 branch, I plan to implement some of the tricky JSON types I had to decode on a recent project, just to see how painful the custom syntax will be, and to compare it to my existing Argo implementation. Hopefully there will be time for at least one round of feedback to be integrated into this functionality.

Jon

On May 1, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

On Apr 26, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <panajev@gmail.com <mailto:panajev@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Itai,

Sorry for the confusion, but I understood that the following

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

meant it would actually hinder that kind of transformation or make it more difficult to write custom decoders and encoders. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

One follow up question: what would happen if inside the JSON mock object you posted I were to remove the 'address' key (in terms of the produced object and how to access its inner properties)?

What would happen if I remove the 'name' one or better if I add another key to the JSON object?

Codable conformance is derived by default to require that all non-optional properties be initialized. This means that if you have a non-optional property address: Address but there is no address key in the JSON payload you're decoding from, it will throw an error to indicate that the key was not found.
On the flip side, if the JSON payload has information in it which your type does not have (e.g. if there is an address in the JSON, but your Person just has name), the extra data is ignored.

This, however, is just in the default, derived conformance. For more complex cases, you can always provide your own init(from:) and encode(to:)to do custom decoding. If you have a property which may or may not be in the JSON, you can always decodeIfPresent, which will return nil if the key or value was not found.
If you need to access sub-objects in the JSON data which do not map to your properties 1-to-1, e.g. your payload looks like {"name": "John Doe", "address": { "street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }, but your type looks like
struct Person {
    let name: String
    let street: String
    let city: String
    // ...
}
then you can always access the nested data by requesting a nestedContainer(keyedBy: ..., forKey: .address) which will return a container wrapping the address sub-object, which you can then pull fields out of.

The derived conformance case gives a reasonable default, but you can always write your own init(from:) and encode(to:) to handle custom needs.

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 21:28, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com <mailto:iferber@apple.com>> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything Encodable can encode any type that is Encodable as a nested value:

struct Person : Codable {
    let name: String
    let address: Address
}

struct Address : Codable {
    let street: String
    let city: String
    let state: String
    let zipCode: Int
    let country: String
}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States")
let person = Person(name: "John Doe", address: address)

let encoder = JSONEncoder()
let payload = try encoder.encode(person)
print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder = JSONDecoder()
let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)
Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Itai Ferber) #14

Yes, this should be true for most types.
The compiler derives conformance based on a nested `CodingKeys` type within your `Codable` type. If you do not supply one, it will derive one on your behalf, but if you do provide one, making a naming transition like this is trivial:

public struct Post : Codable {
     let authorID: Int
     let authorName: String
     let bodyText: String

     private enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
         case authorID = "author_id"
         case authorName = "author_name"
         case bodyText = "body_text"
     }

     // init(from:) and encode(to:) are still automatically generated
}

This is something we wanted to explicitly support as we don't want users to have to violate Swift naming guidelines, and is a step along the progressive disclosure of the API that we want to provide.
As long as the case names of the enum match 1-to-1 with property names, derived conformance still applies.

···

On 1 May 2017, at 11:39, Anders Ha wrote:

I thought it would be quite trivial to have the JSON encoder and decoder transforming the keys between camel case and snake case, wouldn't it?

Regards
Anders

On 2 May 2017, at 1:57 AM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

  FYI, I’d give the derived implementations a very low chance of ever being used for JSON. Unless developers violate the Swift naming guidelines for their properties at least or they don’t have properties with multiword keys.
  Once this functionality has landed for the Swift 4 branch, I plan to implement some of the tricky JSON types I had to decode on a recent project, just to see how painful the custom syntax will be, and to compare it to my existing Argo implementation. Hopefully there will be time for at least one round of feedback to be integrated into this functionality.

Jon

On May 1, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

On Apr 26, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <panajev@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:panajev@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Itai,

Sorry for the confusion, but I understood that the following

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

meant it would actually hinder that kind of transformation or make it more difficult to write custom decoders and encoders. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

One follow up question: what would happen if inside the JSON mock object you posted I were to remove the 'address' key (in terms of the produced object and how to access its inner properties)?

What would happen if I remove the 'name' one or better if I add another key to the JSON object?

Codable conformance is derived by default to require that all non-optional properties be initialized. This means that if you have a non-optional property address: Address but there is no address key in the JSON payload you're decoding from, it will throw an error to indicate that the key was not found.
On the flip side, if the JSON payload has information in it which your type does not have (e.g. if there is an address in the JSON, but your Person just has name), the extra data is ignored.

This, however, is just in the default, derived conformance. For more complex cases, you can always provide your own init(from:) and encode(to:)to do custom decoding. If you have a property which may or may not be in the JSON, you can always decodeIfPresent, which will return nil if the key or value was not found.
If you need to access sub-objects in the JSON data which do not map to your properties 1-to-1, e.g. your payload looks like {"name": "John Doe", "address": { "street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }, but your type looks like
struct Person {
    let name: String
    let street: String
    let city: String
    // ...
}
then you can always access the nested data by requesting a nestedContainer(keyedBy: ..., forKey: .address) which will return a container wrapping the address sub-object, which you can then pull fields out of.

The derived conformance case gives a reasonable default, but you can always write your own init(from:) and encode(to:) to handle custom needs.

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 21:28, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com >>>> <mailto:iferber@apple.com>> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything Encodable can encode any type that is Encodable as a nested value:

struct Person : Codable {
    let name: String
    let address: Address
}

struct Address : Codable {
    let street: String
    let city: String
    let state: String
    let zipCode: Int
    let country: String
}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States")
let person = Person(name: "John Doe", address: address)

let encoder = JSONEncoder()
let payload = try encoder.encode(person)
print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder = JSONDecoder()
let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)
Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >>>>> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution >>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution >>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Itai Ferber) #15

Sorry, one clarifying statement: it's not the JSON encoder and decoder that will be providing this renaming (since they should be encoding the key values they are given as-is); the key names are part of the definition of the enum, as declared as part of the type.

···

On 1 May 2017, at 12:04, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution wrote:

Yes, this should be true for most types.
The compiler derives conformance based on a nested `CodingKeys` type within your `Codable` type. If you do not supply one, it will derive one on your behalf, but if you do provide one, making a naming transition like this is trivial:

public struct Post : Codable {
    let authorID: Int
    let authorName: String
    let bodyText: String

    private enum CodingKeys: String, CodingKey {
        case authorID = "author_id"
        case authorName = "author_name"
        case bodyText = "body_text"
    }

    // init(from:) and encode(to:) are still automatically generated
}

This is something we wanted to explicitly support as we don't want users to have to violate Swift naming guidelines, and is a step along the progressive disclosure of the API that we want to provide.
As long as the case names of the enum match 1-to-1 with property names, derived conformance still applies.

On 1 May 2017, at 11:39, Anders Ha wrote:

I thought it would be quite trivial to have the JSON encoder and decoder transforming the keys between camel case and snake case, wouldn't it?

Regards
Anders

On 2 May 2017, at 1:57 AM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

  FYI, I’d give the derived implementations a very low chance of ever being used for JSON. Unless developers violate the Swift naming guidelines for their properties at least or they don’t have properties with multiword keys.
  Once this functionality has landed for the Swift 4 branch, I plan to implement some of the tricky JSON types I had to decode on a recent project, just to see how painful the custom syntax will be, and to compare it to my existing Argo implementation. Hopefully there will be time for at least one round of feedback to be integrated into this functionality.

Jon

On May 1, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

On Apr 26, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <panajev@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:panajev@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Itai,

Sorry for the confusion, but I understood that the following

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

meant it would actually hinder that kind of transformation or make it more difficult to write custom decoders and encoders. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

One follow up question: what would happen if inside the JSON mock object you posted I were to remove the 'address' key (in terms of the produced object and how to access its inner properties)?

What would happen if I remove the 'name' one or better if I add another key to the JSON object?

Codable conformance is derived by default to require that all non-optional properties be initialized. This means that if you have a non-optional property address: Address but there is no address key in the JSON payload you're decoding from, it will throw an error to indicate that the key was not found.
On the flip side, if the JSON payload has information in it which your type does not have (e.g. if there is an address in the JSON, but your Person just has name), the extra data is ignored.

This, however, is just in the default, derived conformance. For more complex cases, you can always provide your own init(from:) and encode(to:)to do custom decoding. If you have a property which may or may not be in the JSON, you can always decodeIfPresent, which will return nil if the key or value was not found.
If you need to access sub-objects in the JSON data which do not map to your properties 1-to-1, e.g. your payload looks like {"name": "John Doe", "address": { "street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }, but your type looks like
struct Person {
    let name: String
    let street: String
    let city: String
    // ...
}
then you can always access the nested data by requesting a nestedContainer(keyedBy: ..., forKey: .address) which will return a container wrapping the address sub-object, which you can then pull fields out of.

The derived conformance case gives a reasonable default, but you can always write your own init(from:) and encode(to:) to handle custom needs.

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 21:28, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com >>>>> <mailto:iferber@apple.com>> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything Encodable can encode any type that is Encodable as a nested value:

struct Person : Codable {
    let name: String
    let address: Address
}

struct Address : Codable {
    let street: String
    let city: String
    let state: String
    let zipCode: Int
    let country: String
}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States")
let person = Person(name: "John Doe", address: address)

let encoder = JSONEncoder()
let payload = try encoder.encode(person)
print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder = JSONDecoder()
let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)
Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >>>>>> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution >>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via >>>>>>>>> swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org >>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Anders) #16

I do mean optional automatic translation on the encoders’ and decoders’ end though. Derived conformances from other common naming conventions are nice to have, but does not help if one wants to define a model that can be decoded from and encoded into different coded representations of itself. It also “hardwired" the model with a specific coding scheme, which does not seem very nice from an encapsulation PoV.

That said I am fairly sure there would be third party libraries providing key mapping/transformation, if Foundation’s encoders and decoders do not provide such functionality. So it is probably not a big deal.

Regards
Anders

···

On 2 May 2017, at 3:06 AM, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com> wrote:

Sorry, one clarifying statement: it's not the JSON encoder and decoder that will be providing this renaming (since they should be encoding the key values they are given as-is); the key names are part of the definition of the enum, as declared as part of the type.

On 1 May 2017, at 12:04, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution wrote:

Yes, this should be true for most types.
The compiler derives conformance based on a nested CodingKeys type within your Codable type. If you do not supply one, it will derive one on your behalf, but if you do provide one, making a naming transition like this is trivial:

public struct Post
: Codable {
    
let authorID: Int

let authorName: String

let bodyText: String

private enum CodingKeys: String
, CodingKey {
        
case authorID = "author_id"

case authorName = "author_name"

case bodyText = "body_text"

    }

// init(from:) and encode(to:) are still automatically generated

}

This is something we wanted to explicitly support as we don't want users to have to violate Swift naming guidelines, and is a step along the progressive disclosure of the API that we want to provide.
As long as the case names of the enum match 1-to-1 with property names, derived conformance still applies.

On 1 May 2017, at 11:39, Anders Ha wrote:

I thought it would be quite trivial to have the JSON encoder and decoder transforming the keys between camel case and snake case, wouldn't it?

Regards
Anders

On 2 May 2017, at 1:57 AM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

  FYI, I’d give the derived implementations a very low chance of ever being used for JSON. Unless developers violate the Swift naming guidelines for their properties at least or they don’t have properties with multiword keys.
  Once this functionality has landed for the Swift 4 branch, I plan to implement some of the tricky JSON types I had to decode on a recent project, just to see how painful the custom syntax will be, and to compare it to my existing Argo implementation. Hopefully there will be time for at least one round of feedback to be integrated into this functionality.

Jon

On May 1, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

On Apr 26, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <panajev@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Itai,

Sorry for the confusion, but I understood that the following

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

meant it would actually hinder that kind of transformation or make it more difficult to write custom decoders and encoders. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

One follow up question: what would happen if inside the JSON mock object you posted I were to remove the 'address' key (in terms of the produced object and how to access its inner properties)?

What would happen if I remove the 'name' one or better if I add another key to the JSON object?

Codable conformance is derived by default to require that all non-optional properties be initialized. This means that if you have a non-optional property address: Address but there is no address key in the JSON payload you're decoding from, it will throw an error to indicate that the key was not found.
On the flip side, if the JSON payload has information in it which your type does not have (e.g. if there is an address in the JSON, but your Person just has name), the extra data is ignored.

This, however, is just in the default, derived conformance. For more complex cases, you can always provide your own init(from:) and encode(to:)to do custom decoding. If you have a property which may or may not be in the JSON, you can always decodeIfPresent, which will return nil if the key or value was not found.
If you need to access sub-objects in the JSON data which do not map to your properties 1-to-1, e.g. your payload looks like {"name": "John Doe", "address": { "street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }, but your type looks like
struct Person {

let name: String

let street: String

let city: String

// ...
}
then you can always access the nested data by requesting a nestedContainer(keyedBy: ..., forKey: .address) which will return a container wrapping the address sub-object, which you can then pull fields out of.

The derived conformance case gives a reasonable default, but you can always write your own init(from:) and encode(to:) to handle custom needs.

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 21:28, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything Encodable can encode any type that is Encodable as a nested value:

struct Person
: Codable {
    
let name: String

let address
: Address
}

struct Address
: Codable {
    
let street: String

let city: String

let state: String

let zipCode: Int

let country: String

}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States"
)

let person = Person(name: "John Doe"
, address: address)

let encoder
= JSONEncoder()

let payload
= try encoder.encode(person)

print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder
= JSONDecoder()

let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)
Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Itai Ferber) #17

If you need multiple different representations for multiple different formats, then yes, you will likely want to supply different `CodingKeys` enums for those formats and write a custom encode which switches on the format you're writing to. Or, you can use one `CodingKeys` enum which has multiple different key representations (for the different formats you want to support) and use that.

Automatic key renaming is an inherently unsafe operation, so it's not something that we want to provide out of the box, or encourage, but it should be possible if you really want it.

···

On 1 May 2017, at 13:04, Anders Ha wrote:

I do mean optional automatic translation on the encoders’ and decoders’ end though. Derived conformances from other common naming conventions are nice to have, but does not help if one wants to define a model that can be decoded from and encoded into different coded representations of itself. It also “hardwired" the model with a specific coding scheme, which does not seem very nice from an encapsulation PoV.

That said I am fairly sure there would be third party libraries providing key mapping/transformation, if Foundation’s encoders and decoders do not provide such functionality. So it is probably not a big deal.

Regards
Anders

On 2 May 2017, at 3:06 AM, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com> wrote:

Sorry, one clarifying statement: it's not the JSON encoder and decoder that will be providing this renaming (since they should be encoding the key values they are given as-is); the key names are part of the definition of the enum, as declared as part of the type.

On 1 May 2017, at 12:04, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution wrote:

Yes, this should be true for most types.
The compiler derives conformance based on a nested CodingKeys type within your Codable type. If you do not supply one, it will derive one on your behalf, but if you do provide one, making a naming transition like this is trivial:

public struct Post
: Codable {

let authorID: Int

let authorName: String

let bodyText: String

private enum CodingKeys: String
, CodingKey {

case authorID = "author_id"

case authorName = "author_name"

case bodyText = "body_text"

    }

// init(from:) and encode(to:) are still automatically generated

}

This is something we wanted to explicitly support as we don't want users to have to violate Swift naming guidelines, and is a step along the progressive disclosure of the API that we want to provide.
As long as the case names of the enum match 1-to-1 with property names, derived conformance still applies.

On 1 May 2017, at 11:39, Anders Ha wrote:

I thought it would be quite trivial to have the JSON encoder and decoder transforming the keys between camel case and snake case, wouldn't it?

Regards
Anders

On 2 May 2017, at 1:57 AM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

  FYI, I’d give the derived implementations a very low chance of ever being used for JSON. Unless developers violate the Swift naming guidelines for their properties at least or they don’t have properties with multiword keys.
  Once this functionality has landed for the Swift 4 branch, I plan to implement some of the tricky JSON types I had to decode on a recent project, just to see how painful the custom syntax will be, and to compare it to my existing Argo implementation. Hopefully there will be time for at least one round of feedback to be integrated into this functionality.

Jon

On May 1, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

On Apr 26, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <panajev@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

Hello Itai,

Sorry for the confusion, but I understood that the following

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol. We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

meant it would actually hinder that kind of transformation or make it more difficult to write custom decoders and encoders. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

One follow up question: what would happen if inside the JSON mock object you posted I were to remove the 'address' key (in terms of the produced object and how to access its inner properties)?

What would happen if I remove the 'name' one or better if I add another key to the JSON object?

Codable conformance is derived by default to require that all non-optional properties be initialized. This means that if you have a non-optional property address: Address but there is no address key in the JSON payload you're decoding from, it will throw an error to indicate that the key was not found.
On the flip side, if the JSON payload has information in it which your type does not have (e.g. if there is an address in the JSON, but your Person just has name), the extra data is ignored.

This, however, is just in the default, derived conformance. For more complex cases, you can always provide your own init(from:) and encode(to:)to do custom decoding. If you have a property which may or may not be in the JSON, you can always decodeIfPresent, which will return nil if the key or value was not found.
If you need to access sub-objects in the JSON data which do not map to your properties 1-to-1, e.g. your payload looks like {"name": "John Doe", "address": { "street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }, but your type looks like
struct Person {

let name: String

let street: String

let city: String

// ...
}
then you can always access the nested data by requesting a nestedContainer(keyedBy: ..., forKey: .address) which will return a container wrapping the address sub-object, which you can then pull fields out of.

The derived conformance case gives a reasonable default, but you can always write your own init(from:) and encode(to:) to handle custom needs.

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 21:28, Itai Ferber <iferber@apple.com> wrote:

Hi Goffredo,

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, this is exactly what we're proposing with the API — anything Encodable can encode any type that is Encodable as a nested value:

struct Person
: Codable {

let name: String

let address
: Address
}

struct Address
: Codable {

let street: String

let city: String

let state: String

let zipCode: Int

let country: String

}

let address = Address(street: "1 Infinite Loop", city: "Cupertino", state: "CA", zipCode: 95014, country: "United States"
)

let person = Person(name: "John Doe"
, address: address)

let encoder
= JSONEncoder()

let payload
= try encoder.encode(person)

print(String(data: payload, encoding: .utf8)!) // => {"name": "John Doe", address: {"street": "1 Infinite Loop", ... } }

let decoder
= JSONDecoder()

let decoded = try decoder.decode(Person.self, from: payload) // => Person(name: "John Doe", address: ...)
Or have I misunderstood you?

— Itai

On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:11, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >>>>>> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:24, Tony Parker via swift-evolution >>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Riley,

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Riley Testut via swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

I’m sure this has already been discussed, but why are the methods throwing NSErrors and not Enums? If I’m remembering correctly, the original reason for this was because this was meant to be a part of Foundation. Now that this is in the Standard Library, however, it seems strange that we’re still using NSError.

Second question that again I’m sure was asked and answered already, but: why do we require implementations for each concrete numeric type (Int, Int8, Int16, Float, etc), instead of using protocols (such as the new Integer protocols)?

To answer your second question, the reason is that using the protocol implies that all encoders and decoders must support anything that conforms to that protocol.

Would this make it easier to transform nested JSON into a nested object/struct? If so it could be useful, very useful.

We’re not sure this is a reasonable requirement. Many formats do not have any kind of support for arbitrary size integers, for example. Therefore, we felt it was best to limit it to a set of concrete types.

I honk we would be missing a trick, unless I am missing something here, that was very powerful in libraries like Mantle for iOS: the ability to translate a nested JSON object (some keys in the JSON object having a JSON object as value, etc...) in an MTLModel subclass composed of other MTLModel subclasses where doing the transformation of the root object would call the right model needed to transform for the child JSON objects.
Working with Mantle is safe, rugged (it does not cause crashes if the JSON file changes), and allows you to break the problem into chunks and present a coherent simple view to the code that makes use of the instance you created out of the JSON input. Reference: https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle/blob/master/README.md

We could change our minds on this before we ship Swift 4, if we feel it was the wrong decision. Now that the proposals are accepted we will be landing these branches in master soon, which means everyone has a great chance to try it out and see how it feels in real world usage before it’s final.

- Tony

On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Douglas Gregor via >>>>>>>>> swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0166-swift-archival-serialization.md

Hello Swift Community,

The review of SE-0166 “Swift Archival & Serialization” ran from April 6...12, 2017. The proposal is accepted with some minor modifications. Specifically, the core protocols and types will be sunk down into the Swift standard library for more tight integration with the Swift language and compiler, and the operations specifically involving Foundation’s “Data” type will be removed. The proposal document has been updated with more detail. Thank you everyone for participating in this review!

  - Doug
  Review Manager

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution