@neuecc did you have time to look at neuecc/MessagePack-CSharp#530 It would be a (minor) breaking change, so getting it before 2.0 would be really nice.
@neuecc Since it looks like we may not have an agreed upon stable API by the end of this week, but I think there's hope we can reconcile our goals, so I bought some more time. I also see a hard problem in my use case that can only be solved by truly supporting streaming deserialization (neuecc/MessagePack-CSharp#437). I may actually try to work that into v2 instead of postponing to some future v3 in order to avoid two sets of massively API breaking changes.
only Visual Studio, shows some error(but in Unity Editor works).
@hiradyazdan Utf8Json and MessagePack adopts similar architecture. When MessagePack architecture will stable, I'll back.
@neuecc you mean i can serialize json string to object and vice versa (not binaries/byte arrays) with messagepack too? i didn’t realize that! can you please point me to where and how i can do that? because wherever i looked there was nothing i could find in that regard. Or perhaps you mean the core is similar?
@neuecc Can you open an issue to track the Directory.Build.Props unity issue?
@AArnott is there anyway to ignore null values from a serialized object in int key mode? I understand that int keys will set null if value not provided or indexes are skipped, as the receiver would be accepting the same key index, but what if sender has different indexing than receiver? say in two different environments where messagepack-csharp is used for the serializer only?
I'm not sure I understand your question, @hiradyazdan. In int key mode, MessagePack stores each field as an element in an array. If we didn't store a messagepack nil code in a slot of that array, what would we store instead? If we "compressed" it by simply omitting those elements then all the indexes would be off and the deserializer wouldn't know how to interpret each element.
the use case of this would be when there are two different model structures required for the same model, where one doesn’t need the elements that the other need (aiming to two different servers for example)
you have a deserializer using msgpack-csharp in c# env which can work fine without skipping nils and reindxing, and another one, on another server for example, that expects different model structure, which skips and reindex.
It sounds like you have two potential schemas you want to serialize to. You can do that in either of two ways: The simplest is to define each schemas in terms of a C# class. Serialize an instance of the class based on where you're sending the serialized result. So if you have one destination that expects 3 properties and one that expects 4, instantiate and initialize both classes, and serialize each one.
The other option is to write a custom formatter that knows to skip specific properties and serialize with that one when you want to omit them.
The other option is to write a custom formatter that knows to skip specific properties and serialize with that one when you want to omit them.
Or an Example Project?
@pmArchitect There is nothing specific about MessagePack and Unity. Use it as the first code block in the readme on the repository shows. The ONLY thing unity specific is, that it can serialize some of the types of Unity. You still need to separete serializeable and non-serialiezable data and assign the values deserialized after loading to whatever you use in Unity.
@neuecc With #589 I think we've made all the public API and behavioral changes we want to for 2.0. How do you feel about a stable package?
I'm going to go through the active PRs and maybe a few of the issues to see if any are best done before 2.0 stabilizes.
(and probably aggressively close some stale PRs)
@AArnott thanks for looking. About lint, maybe #556, during working for Unity, I've deleted Directory.Build.props.
Can MessagePack c # deserialize an array of objects lazy?
@neuecc Hello. Can MessagePack deserialize an array of objects lazy?
If you mean can it deserialize a
Lazy<int>[], I think not. Even if it could, the values inside wouldn't actually be lazy -- they would have to be constructed at deserialization time. Unless perhaps you were willing to keep the ReadOnlySequence<byte> that you deserialized from around indefinitely.
@AArnott I have a very large array of objects, when deserializing I can not load them into memory. I would like to use something like .deserialize <IEnumerable <myClass>>. And then the myClass object was deserialized only by accessing it in the foreach body