I understand, that's where we don't see it the exact same way. You
merge it by name where I would merge it by java model with standard
order. So basically I'd do a reduce (java) then validation (json side
if we can call it this way). Doesnt impact performances.
Now the real question is: do we gain anything compared to what you
propose ie ensuring we don't have conflicts. I still think it can make
sense to validate there isn't a "model conflict". Implicit merging can
be hard to debug from my experience. That said if we ensure the
framework logs it properly (level = warn + logger name =
javax.json.something) then it would work for me as well.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-04-20 19:34 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2015-04-20 19:28 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>>
>> well not supporting the validation for custom serialization code
>> doesnt sound like a big issue for me but it doesn't prevent to
>> validate the model. I didn't speak of the merging but for instance 2
>> different methods/fields decorated with @JsonProperty(name="foo").
>
>
> Yes I was including renamed properties in that and by merging I was meaning
> take N properties (field/method/ctr) and reduce it to one (how you achieve
> it is up to the impl).
> To me renamed or original name is the same, as I first resolve the names and
> then do all the selection/merging stuff.
> Amongst others, this allows to override in subclasses things from parent
> classes - by using the same name.
>
>>
>>
>> For me just doing it already matches the intention behind I-JSON.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>> 2015-04-20 19:24 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>> > I think doing it on the model is something else as basically you already
>> > merge detected properties, so you end up with only one.
>> > At least that's what I do in Genson, I give preference to the detected
>> > properties (methods/fields/whatever else) by hierarchy (from most
>> > concrete
>> > to the "highest" parent). And the compiler provides already some
>> > safeguards.
>> >
>> > Still all that doesn't solve the problem of colliding properties being
>> > written by the user (via some custom ser. code).
>> > But well... we can't always prevent people from doing stupid things :)
>> >
>> > 2015-04-20 19:11 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>> >>
>> >> 2015-04-20 19:05 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>> >> >
>> >> > 2015-04-19 19:44 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Martin
>> >> >>
>> >> >> for me it makes sense to support it by default with a flag like the
>> >> >> one you proposed to switch it off (a bit off topic but do we have
>> >> >> constants for these flags, something like Jsonb.I_JSON_COMPLIANCE?).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> UTF8 by default is quite mandatory IMO, must-ignore as well (already
>> >> >> discussed IIRC). ISO8601 is the standard for dates of most of
>> >> >> frameworks, big numbers need to be string whatever we do so finally
>> >> >> open points from my window are:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - byte data as base64: on johnzon we discussed it and I didn't want
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> cause it was far from Java - that said it is not a super common type
>> >> >> so not sure it is that important
>> >> >> - top level construct: don't recall the spec but I think primitives
>> >> >> (string, numbers) can be supported as well. Jackson does it at least
>> >> >> so +1 to not support this fail fast behavior
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't think there is much value in being too restrictive, +1 for
>> >> > it.
>> >> > I don't remember any discussion about accepting to deser. numbers as
>> >> > strings, strings as numbers etc when possible, but it would be nice.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - no members with duplicate name: the only point I don't know.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > This one is painful as it has an impact on performances (esp. if we
>> >> > want
>> >> > to
>> >> > prevent user custom code to generate such output)... at the moment I
>> >> > don't
>> >> > support it in Genson for this reason.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Can't we do it on the model (ie once for the whole application
>> >> lifecycle)? I guess here we are lucky compared to JSON-P.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Intellij Idea makes this kind of JON invalid. This is something we
>> >> >> would need to be able to switch off but I think it makes sense to
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> it by default to detect wrong models.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >> >> @rmannibucau
>> >> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >> >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> >> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2015-04-18 19:53 GMT+02:00 Martin Vojtek <voytoo_at_gmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Experts,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > JSON-B should provide support or some level of compliance with
>> >> >> > I-JSON
>> >> >> > specification.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There are several things to discuss.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Should JSON-B support I-JSON by default? My proposal is to not
>> >> >> > support
>> >> >> > all
>> >> >> > the recommendations of I-JSON by default.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If we agree on that, what specific parts of I-JSON should JSON-B
>> >> >> > provide
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> > default?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Proposal of parts (of I-JSON) to support by JSON-B by default:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Should be supported by default:
>> >> >> > - Encoding and Characters (UTF-8 by default)
>> >> >> > - Object constraints (no members with duplicate name)
>> >> >> > - MUST-IGNORE policy - partial mapping
>> >> >> > - Time and Date Handling - serialize accoring to I-JSON
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Should not be supported by default:
>> >> >> > - Numbers - serialize big number(s) into string (and deser given
>> >> >> > strings
>> >> >> > into number)
>> >> >> > - Top-Level Constructs - fail fast when ser/deser something
>> >> >> > different
>> >> >> > than
>> >> >> > object/array as top-level JSON
>> >> >> > - binary data encoded as a string in base64url
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > To support I-JSON fully in some case, I propose to provide I-JSON
>> >> >> > compatibility mode available via config property.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > JsonbConfig config = new
>> >> >> > JsonbConfig().setProperty("jsonb.i-json.compliance", true);
>> >> >> > Jsonb jsonb = JsonbBuilder.create(config);
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Looking forward to your feedback.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > MartinV
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>