Is Newtonsoft Support Within Consideration/Scope? about zeroql HOT 3 CLOSED

I was thinking about it initially but decided there was no point in it. System.Json is faster and already "installed" in net6.0+ projects. To make it work, it is not enough to replace the attribute. You have to rewrite the custom serializes for scalar and supported built-in types. Incorporate new options into the source generator. Figured out how to cover all scenarios in the integration tests. I would say a big chunk of work.

What raises the question of what benefits it would bring? Performance? No. Ease of use? They are pretty much the same in most scenarios. Compatibility? System.Text.Json works on netstandard. The only thing I can see is eliminating the dependency on System.Text.Json, which can be useful for projects already using Newtosoft. At the same time, the best path forward is to use a built-in serializer. So, from my perspective, there is no point to invest time in it.

from zeroql.

I am trying to configure the ASP.NET project to use one serializer or another depending on the controller

I don't get it. Why would you need to configure anything to work with the ZeroQL client? Everything happens under the hood and doesn't require any intervention from the developer side.

from zeroql.

I don't get it. Why would you need to configure anything to work with the ZeroQL client? Everything happens under the hood and doesn't require any intervention from the developer side.

Oh totally agree with you; getting the data from the ZeroQL client works like a charm. This is for when I am trying to return a ZeroQL model out of the controller. For example:

public async Task<IActionResult> Get()
{
  var response = await GQLClient.Query(...)
  return Ok(response.Data)
}

Which works just fine when I remove the .AddNewtonsoftJson() when the asp.net up is spun up. But the project needs that since a lot of the controllers in the project were designed for NewtonsoftJson serialization. When I keep the .AddNewtonsoftJson() code, it still returns the data but serializes the backing fields (so there are '__' for all the sub objects)

Hence my attempts to configure which controllers used which serializers. Thankfully I found another approach that works for my situation.

So, from my perspective, there is no point to invest time in it.

Got yeah! I appreciate you taking the time to read and share your thoughts.

from zeroql.