Such an API is great cause you keep the return type typed vs Type usage
which goes back on object cause of type erasure but if EE can provide a
common annotation I'm to rely on it. If not Type is good enough for jsonb 1.
Le 27 avr. 2016 19:06, "Eugen Cepoi" <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com> a écrit :
> Yeah we already discussed it. If the user needs access to an instance of
> java.lang.reflect.Type it can get it from elsewhere.
>
> Romain, are you saying that you want to provide an API with auto discovery
> to create generic types?
>
> 2016-04-27 6:33 GMT-07:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>
>> Not sure I fully got it but the idea was for vendors to provide an
>> extension api/module with an implementation of ParameterizedType: new
>> VendorParameterizedType<Map<String, MyPojo>>(Map.class, new Type[] {
>> String.class, Mypojo.class }) // or same using reflection to get the types
>> but it is slower and has some pitfalls as seen in CDI API.
>>
>> If we can get such API (with auto or not discovery) in JSR 250 we are
>> very good IMO
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>> 2016-04-27 15:18 GMT+02:00 Roman Grigoriadi <roman.grigoriadi_at_oracle.com>
>> :
>>
>>> Another preference to use such token is elimination of instance creation
>>> or extension. I thought that GenericType user may wish to deserialize into
>>> may be havy for instantiation in contrast to such token.
>>>
>>> For example what will you pass in method receiving Type for
>>> deserialization in a result of Map<String, MyPojo> ?
>>>
>>> Roman
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/27/2016 03:08 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Roman,
>>>
>>> think we spoke about it and decided to not do it cause it was already
>>> everywhere with different API (JAXRS -
>>> <http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericType.html>
>>> http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericType.html,
>>> CDI -
>>> http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/enterprise/util/TypeLiteral.html,
>>> ...) and using Type is enough. Issue is you loose the type safety with Type
>>> (guess that's why you ask).
>>>
>>> I know JSR 250 will get another release, would be awesome if we could
>>> get in touch with this spec (and maybe EE/CDI/JAXRS) to get a common
>>> annotation for that.
>>>
>>> If we can I'm clearly +1 otherwise I think implementations can provide
>>> this on top of Type until we get such an API.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense? I can ping CDI list about that if you want.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>
>>> 2016-04-27 14:57 GMT+02:00 Roman Grigoriadi <roman.grigoriadi_at_oracle.com
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> Hi experts,
>>>>
>>>> how about to include a class for holding info about generic types in
>>>> API:
>>>>
>>>> public abstract class TypeInfo<T> {
>>>>
>>>> private final Type type; protected TypeInfo() {
>>>> //type extracted from <T>
>>>> } public Type getType() {
>>>> return type;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Such helper is present in Gson as TypeToken and in Jackson as
>>>> TypeReference.
>>>>
>>>> Jsonb methods with "Type runtimeType" argument will than be
>>>> interchanged with "TypeInfo runtimeTypeInfo" arg.
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> <T> T fromJson(Reader reader, Type runtimeType)
>>>>
>>>> <T> T fromJson(Reader reader, TypeInfo<T> runtimeType)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Returning <T> instance in second case is type safe, and eliminates need
>>>> of creation anonymous class instance (or class extension) of (de)serialized
>>>> a Java type.
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> List<MyPojo> result1 = jsonb.fromJson(jsonString, new TypeToken<List<MyPojo>>(){});
>>>>
>>>> instead of
>>>>
>>>> ArrayList<MyPojo>> result = jsonb.fromJson(jsonString, new ArrayList<MyPojo>>(){});
>>>>
>>>> WDYT? Thanks, Roman
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>