users@jsonb-spec.java.net

[jsonb-spec users] [jsr367-experts] Re: [2-DefaultMapping] Proposal

From: Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:09:16 +0100

2015-03-16 13:54 GMT+01:00 Martin Grebac <martin.grebac_at_oracle.com>:

> On 12.03.15 17:36, Eugen Cepoi wrote:
>
>> Hey Martins,
>>
>> Quick feedback on the API.
>>
>> I don't like much the to/from in JsonbConfig. At least for the formatting
>> it is obvious that it exists only during serialization.
>>
> What would be the suggestion?
>

When the config is valable only for ser or deser, just use the config name
(+ maybe some prefix use/with/etc). And about configs that exist for both
ser and deser I am not sure. I hesitate between:
 - don't allow to configure a same instance with different ser and deser
configs => we can then use the same naming strategy as previously
 - provide the ability to configure separately ser/de => prefix with
serializationEncoding/deserializationEncoding
 - keep as it is

toJson/fromJson look a bit strange as they are "active terms", working well
when doing the action in Jsonb but less for configuration, that's probably
why I don't like it much. What do others think?


> Not sure ConfigException is needed, I mean sure in some case we could
>> throw this exception, but in practice maybe no one will. Also in multiple
>> places I see IllegalArgumentEx, and it makes sense, we could same way use
>> other existing exceptions - instead of ConfigEx.
>> getProperty could return an Optional and throw an exception only if the
>> arg is null.
>>
> Both sound good to me, will apply unless hear otherwise.
>
> We could also add an option to skip null during serialization in the
>> config.
>>
> We'll handle this separately, but I agree.
>
> In JsonbBuilder, the newBuilder related to JsonbProvider are a bit
>> redundant as we also have similar method inside the provider. But from
>> another side, it provides a single entry point - this is good. This makes
>> the API more easy to use.
>>
>> I didn't read the javadoc carefully.
>>
>> About the examples... well they are just examples :)
>>
> That's why I'd like to focus you more on the spec pdf itself at this point
> ;)
> MartiNG
>
>
>> Eugen
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-12 16:46 GMT+01:00 Martin Grebac <martin.grebac_at_oracle.com
>> <mailto:martin.grebac_at_oracle.com>>:
>>
>> Just would like to explicitly point to the spec document itself in
>> this branch:
>>
>> https://java.net/projects/jsonb-spec/sources/git/
>> content/spec/spec.pdf?rev=da7db533076856699cec49a4eebd300b9f4a7230
>>
>> MartiNG
>>
>>
>> On 12.03.15 16:35, Martin Vojtek wrote:
>>
>> Hi Experts,
>>
>> there has been a lot of changes recently in default_mapping.
>> This completes the second iteration of default mapping proposal.
>>
>> Generics and integration with JSON Processing is not part of
>> this discussion.
>>
>> Please take a look and feel free to express your point of view.
>>
>> https://github.com/json-binding/spec/tree/default_mapping
>>
>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>>
>> MartinV
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Martin Grebac, SW Engineering Manager
> Oracle Czech, Prague
>
>