On 08.02.15 19:30, Eugen Cepoi wrote:
> Some quick comments:
>
> In Jsonb javadoc: /"{_at_code toJson}: marshall Java objects content tree
> *from JSON input*/" => to json?
Fixed, thanks.
> Example 3: could be just: Jsonb jsonb = new
> CustomJsonbBuilder().build() no?
>
> In the ser/de examples, I would only keep one "Jsonb jsonb =
> JsonbBuilder.create()" at the beginning and then refer to jsonb
> instance, so it is more obvious than the same instance can and should
> be reused.
Agree with the above, applied.
> JsonBuilder().build() and JsonBuilder.create(), both make a Jsonb
> instance but one is static and the other an instance method, maybe
> they could have the same name?
Actually, not sure how you would want to achieve it? I left the names
different to distinguish the 'helper' methods from the real builder method.
> Lets see what you have in mind and how you are planning to address the
> main jira tickets before discussing things more in depth :)
>
> - I am most interested in first seeing how *default ser/de* (only for
> a couple of types) would be impl and how *end users would plug in
> custom ser/de* (only via an Adapter or with direct access to some low
> level streaming api). The adapter (pojo <> json object) solution would
> be fine if they don't need extra perfs
> - Then see how types with no default ser/de (JavaBeans ?) would be
> handled.
Sure, Martin Vojtek will start bringing the mapping topics to the table
soon and I'll continue with the additional topics which will cover also
those below.
MartiNG
> Once here we should have a good feel of the API and have more material
> to aliment the discussion :)
> Then move to:
>
> - How visibility, naming strategy, etc would be achieved and used with
> the java beans ser/de.
>
> - How generics would be handled and integrated with the rest of the API.
>
> This should cover the major parts where opinions about the design
> could diverge.