So it means if you have a MyAdapter<A, B> (with generics still generics)
then we assume we can't use withAdapter(new MyAdapter<String, Boolean>())
but withAdapters(new MyAdapter<String, Boolean>() {})? Asking in term of
framework where you often get rid of the generics so wonder if it would
work but we can start like it is and see the feedback we have for a
potential 1.1.
For the method naming just fixing the javadoc is fine I think but renaming
the method marshall and unmarshall can be more explicit as well. No string
opinion on that while it is somewhere.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2016-02-01 14:47 GMT+01:00 Roman Grigoriadi <roman.grigoriadi_at_oracle.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think we need it. I use anonymous adapers as follows:
>
> jsonb = JsonbBuilder.create(new JsonbConfig().withAdapters(new JsonbAdapter<Box, Crate>() {
> @Override public Crate adaptFrom(Box box) {
> ... }
>
> @Override public Box adaptTo(Crate crate) {
> ... }
> }));
>
> A compile time generic information of type arguments From and To would is
> still available in case of anonymous class. You are right it isnt clear
> from javadoc which type of From and To stands for which object. "From" is
> for type that we would like to adapt. "To" is for type into which
> adaptation is done. But it is a "two way" process, which is always
> dependant on context - marshalling / unmarshalling. During marshalling we
> convert From to To and than serialize To. During unmarshalling we first
> deserialize into To, cibvert To to From which is set thereafter in resultin
> business model. Would it be any more clear if we rename methods "adaptFrom"
> and "adaptTo" to "adaptMarshalling" and "adaptUnmarshalling"? Regards,
> Roman
> On 01/29/2016 07:10 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> do we add a withAdapter(from, to, adapter) method to JsonbConfig?
> it would allow anonymous adapters to work instead of having to create a
> class.
> Also the javadoc should be updated since to and from method have the same
> and we don't know if the json type should be from or to - I'd assume from
> but would be good to make it clear. Or do we support auto detection (ie <A,
> B> = <B, A> for the runtime? this would prevent custom logic in one
> particular way if so)
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>