Hi Philippe,<div><br></div><div><br><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">There is Magritte-Json in [1]. It gives you more control, you can<br>


override the name of a property and choose not to serialize certain<br>
objects. I found this necessary when implementing certain predefined<br>
APIs. It&#39;s a bit more &quot;magritty&quot; in the sense that is uses reader and<br>
writer objects. Though it could certainly be improved on. You can find<br>
examples in [2].<br>
<br>
 [1] <a href="http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/magritteaddons" target="_blank">http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/magritteaddons</a><br>
 [2] <a href="http://www.squeaksource.com/orion" target="_blank">http://www.squeaksource.com/orion</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It looks good and more comprehensive than my effort.</div><div><br></div><div>It appears that objects have to be derived from MJObject in order to use the Json conversion. Would there be a problem moving the #javascriptOn: method from MJObject to an extension method on GRObject to allow more objects to gain the Json conversion functionality? (I choose GRObject as WAObject, PRObject &amp; MAObject are all ultimately derived from GRObject).</div>
<div><br></div><div>The difference between #asJavascript (with it&#39;s accompanying #javascriptOn:), asJson (with it&#39;s accompanying #jsonOn:)? It appears that even though #asJavascript and #asJson have largely the same effect, #asJson implements a Json compatible subset of #asJavascript. Would it not make sense to use #asJson instead of #asJavascript and #jsonOn: rather than #javascriptOn:, or have I missed something?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>Nick</div>
</div></div></div>