Re: Proposal for removing some serialization limitations of define-configuration

[Felix Lechner]

Hi Tomas,

On Sun, Jun 23 2024, Tomas Volf wrote:

> 1. I need the serializer for `name' field to wrap the output of other
>    serializers.

Is it possible with nested configuration records (which I remember are
complicated to set up)?

> 2. I need to serialize key-file and key-type as one (since they belong on one
>    line).

Yeah, I've had that issue, too.  I am not sure the field-based
serializers are a general solution.

> I did not figure out how to achieve those except by a custom
> procedure: This has the obvious maintenance issues though, so I think
> it would be nice to be able to utilize the existing serializer
> infrastructure for this

I probably find the custom serializer, which is in one place, easier to
understand than passing the record around, but I'm ready to be convinced
otherwise.  In any event, I'm a newbie so please feel free to disregard.

Kind regards
Felix