[Pulp-dev] JSON Field Implementation

[Patrick Creech]

While implementing the task models for Pulp 3.0, I came to the conclusion that we still have a
requirement for implementing a database field strictly for object persistence.  The best solution
for this will be to utilize a custom field for this, that allows us to serialize it to a json string
and back.  The question then became implementing our own or utilize something that already exists.

Afer searching through a link provided by Sean[0] at what's available for JSONField implementations,
 I have come to the decision that it will probably be more beneficial for us to implement our own.

Most implementations seem to stem from this blog post[1] which (sadly) isn't available at it's
original location anymore (wayback machine link)

After reading the various implementations (which are in various states of completeness/abandon for
the most part), I came to the conclusion that this is actually something that is simple and common
to do, and that the various implementations were really only differing in python and django-agnostic 
coding as compared to functionality.

With that, I feel it's more prudent for us to implement our own field instead of relying on another
implementation.  This should allow us to be more flexible with what our requirements are for this
specific use case and keep it simple.

Before I move forward with this, does anyone else have any thoughts/concerns?



[0] https://djangopackages.org/grids/g/json-fields/
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160201155913/http://cramer.io/2009/04/14/cleaning-up-with-json-and
-sql
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20160822/68cc15bf/attachment.sig>