You are right, thank you.
Martin
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Olena Syrota <sirotae_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Absolutly agree.
> Small correction: \" needed at the beginning and the end of the input JSON
> string.
>
> String escapedString = jsonb.fromJson("\" \\\" \\\\ \\/ \\b \\f \\n \\r \\t \\u0039\"", String.class);
>
> Olena
>
>
> 2015-03-06 18:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Vojtek <voytoo_at_gmail.com>:
>
>> More escaping.
>>
>> assertEquals("\" \\\\ \\\" / \\b \\f \\n \\r \\t 9\"", jsonb.toJson(" \\ \" / \b \f \n \r \t \u0039"));
>>
>> MartinV
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Martin Vojtek <voytoo_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Olena,
>>>
>>> when I look into
>>> https://github.com/sirotae/jsonb-spec-ua-adopt/tree/master/examples/src/test/java/jug/ua/jsonb/examples/default_mapping
>>>
>>> maybe there should be instead of
>>>
>>> String actual = jsonb.fromJson("\"\b\"", String.class);
>>>
>>> following:
>>>
>>> String actual = jsonb.fromJson("\"\\b\"", String.class);
>>>
>>>
>>> and instead of
>>>
>>> String actual = jsonb.toJson("\b");
>>> assertEquals("\"\b\"", actual);
>>>
>>> should be
>>>
>>> String actual = jsonb.toJson("\b");
>>> assertEquals("\"\\b\"", actual);
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Full test:
>>>
>>> //String escaping
>>> String escapedString = jsonb.fromJson(" \\\" \\\\ \\/ \\b \\f \\n \\r \\t \\u0039", String.class);
>>> assertEquals(" \" \\ / \b \f \n \r \t 9", escapedString);
>>>
>>> assertEquals("\" / \\b \\f \\n \\r \\t 9\"", jsonb.toJson(" / \b \f \n \r \t \u0039"));
>>>
>>> MartinV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Olena Syrota <sirotae_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> More feedback from Kiev UA JUG (with Oleg Tsal-Tsalko and Andrii
>>>> Rodionov).
>>>>
>>>> 1. JSON value formatting. Let me propose to follow The JSON Data
>>>> Interchange Format (
>>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-404.pdf).
>>>> Due to this document JSON value is printed without square brackets "[...]".
>>>> Square brakets are used for JSON array.
>>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>> - jsonb.fromJson("1", Byte.class)
>>>>
>>>> instead of
>>>>
>>>> - jsonb.fromJson("[1]", Byte.class), etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. More cases for String mapping should be considered. Due to
>>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-404.pdf,
>>>> page 5, we should add mapping cases for \", /, \\, \r, \n, \t, \f, \b,
>>>> \uXXXX.
>>>> See
>>>> https://github.com/sirotae/jsonb-spec-ua-adopt/tree/master/examples/src/test/java/jug/ua/jsonb/examples/default_mapping,
>>>> file StringMapping.java
>>>>
>>>> 3. Structure Mapping from Json.
>>>> Case 1. Instead of
>>>>
>>>> - Collection<Object> collection =
>>>> (ArrayList<Object>)jsonb.fromJson("[{\"value\":\"first\"},
>>>> {\"value\":\"second\"}]", Object.class);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me propose:
>>>>
>>>> - List<Object> act = (List)jsonb.fromJson("[{\"value\":\"first\"},
>>>> {\"value\":\"second\"}]", Object.class);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Case 2. Instead of
>>>>
>>>> - Map<String, Object> map =
>>>> (LinkedHashMap<String,Object>)jsonb.fromJson("{\"name\":\"unknown
>>>> object\"}", Object.class);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> let me propose
>>>>
>>>> - Map<String, Object> map =
>>>> (Map)jsonb.fromJson("{\"name\":\"unknown object\"}", Object.class);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>> Olena
>>>>
>>>> 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> The way byte arrays are being ser/de can be a config. option.
>>>>> The advantage of base64 is that it produces much smaller json than
>>>>> using an array.
>>>>> I didn't benchmark ser/de speed when using one or the other but I
>>>>> guess the difference is probably not so big.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugen
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-03-03 13:47 GMT-08:00 Hendrik Dev <hendrikdev22_at_gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what about byte[] serialization and deserialization to/from base64?
>>>>>> For me its natural (like proposed by MartinV) so ser/deser into a
>>>>>> array of bytes like [3,-1,33,-11] but some json binding frameworks out
>>>>>> there ser/deser byte[] to/from a base64 encoded string by default.
>>>>>> To make the spec compatible with them maybe we should consider to
>>>>>> support both?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wdyt?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Hendrik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Martin Grebac <
>>>>>> martin.grebac_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Please ignore the last point - bad example. Will provide multiple
>>>>>> examples
>>>>>> > within the generics topic.
>>>>>> > MartiNG
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On 27.02.15 10:03, Martin Grebac wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On 25.02.15 20:29, Przemyslaw Bielicki wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Yes exactly like this.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >> Not sure exactly like what - are you suggesting both scenarios?
>>>>>> Root level
>>>>>> >> as well as nested?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> Without typetoken it could be difficult as Optional is a final
>>>>>> class thus
>>>>>> >>> we cannot make custom classes like OptionalFoo extends
>>>>>> Optional<Foo>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> 25 lut 2015 19:35 "Eugen Cepoi" <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com
>>>>>> >>> <mailto:cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>> napisał(a):
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> If it is about Optional at the mapping level I am not sure
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> >>> is a need to make it appear in the spec.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >> In spec we have to define (or decide to not to define) the
>>>>>> behaviour for
>>>>>> >> Optional within default mapping at least to not cause portability
>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> The use case I would see with optional at root level is when
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >>> root value it self is null... with typetoken could look like
>>>>>> (I
>>>>>> >>> don't know how you plan to handle generics):
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Optional<Foo> optFoo = jsonb.fromJson(json, new
>>>>>> >>> TypeToken<Optional<Foo>>() {})
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >> What is the value that this support brings to JSON Binding? Does
>>>>>> this have
>>>>>> >> value for further work with optFoo?
>>>>>> >> The call requires constructing the specific type, requires us to
>>>>>> remove
>>>>>> >> type checking from the method signature which is useful in
>>>>>> non-generic
>>>>>> >> cases, and I'm not sure about the value or problem it actually
>>>>>> solves.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> But the most common would be to have optional nested in Pojo
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> >>> structures. In that case it would be handled directly by
>>>>>> impls.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >> We're again inherently discussing generics here with Optional,
>>>>>> too. And
>>>>>> >> the same as above applies - we need portable behaviour. So, let's
>>>>>> say we
>>>>>> >> have
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> public class B {
>>>>>> >> Optional<C> c;
>>>>>> >> }
>>>>>> >> public class C {
>>>>>> >> Optional<List<Optional<String>>> s;
>>>>>> >> OptionalInt i;
>>>>>> >> D<String,Long> d;
>>>>>> >> }
>>>>>> >> public class D<T1,T2> {
>>>>>> >> List<T1> l1;
>>>>>> >> Optional<T2> t2;
>>>>>> >> }
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> And you want to be marshalling / unmarshalling from / into this
>>>>>> structure.
>>>>>> >> How would the implementation at runtime be able to defer and
>>>>>> create proper
>>>>>> >> types for the individual properties?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> MartiNG
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> 2015-02-25 5:27 GMT-08:00 Martin Grebac <
>>>>>> martin.grebac_at_oracle.com
>>>>>> >>> <mailto:martin.grebac_at_oracle.com>>:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> On 25.02.15 8:44, Przemyslaw Bielicki wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> The trouble with Optional is that it is typed,
>>>>>> and as
>>>>>> >>> such its use is too complex within the api
>>>>>> methods we
>>>>>> >>> have now compared to the minimal benefit it
>>>>>> brings.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Anyway I think it should be impl specific feature -
>>>>>> sorry
>>>>>> >>> for the noise.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> After re-reading I think I may have been too fast and
>>>>>> >>> misunderstood the usecase. Before I jump into my rant on
>>>>>> >>> Optional :) , would you please give some examples of the
>>>>>> >>> expected outcomes, say based on MartinV's default mapping
>>>>>> >>> examples?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> I think it makes sense to get some clarity into this and
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> >>> decisions whether the support for Optional should be in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >>> spec, whether it should be default, and whether it should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> >>> spec defined configuration, mostly because Optional has
>>>>>> value
>>>>>> >>> wrt lambdas. Thus I also expect the reasoning will likely
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> >>> to include the expected stream use? I don't find Optional
>>>>>> >>> bringing any significant value outside of streams.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> MartiNG
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Martin Grebac, SW Engineering Manager
>>>>>> > Oracle Czech, Prague
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22)
>>>>>> @hendrikdev22
>>>>>> PGP: 0x22D7F6EC
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>