You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am working in a project in which we want to process a json such as:
{ "id":0, "name":"monopoly","description":
{"en":"Monopoly is a board game that originated in the United States in 1903"
,"es":"Monopoly es un juego de mesa de intercambio y de bienes raíces"
}}
I like the easiness of this library and would like to contribute a patch to allow processing this kind of formats. I imagine it like this:
We want to opt for this format because the localized data is editable and stored in the database.
As such, it makes a lot of sense to return localization values together with queried data.
Do you find it worth the extra complexity and effort as to accept a PR?
Do you have some feedback, syntactic preferences, or any concerns?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am working in a project in which we want to process a json such as:
{ "id":0, "name":"monopoly","description":
{"en":"Monopoly is a board game that originated in the United States in 1903"
,"es":"Monopoly es un juego de mesa de intercambio y de bienes raíces"
}}
I like the easiness of this library and would like to contribute a patch to allow processing this kind of formats. I imagine it like this:
String.toLocaleString(retrievedObjectWithLocalizedData,"reverseFormat");
"description".toLocaleString();
We want to opt for this format because the localized data is editable and stored in the database.
As such, it makes a lot of sense to return localization values together with queried data.
Do you find it worth the extra complexity and effort as to accept a PR?
Do you have some feedback, syntactic preferences, or any concerns?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: