While field visibility can be customized by method it works - ie private
getter hides fields during ser - but does it make sense to support fields
not accessible by code at all by default? I am not convinced. Means design
is broken even if I understand it is technical only objects. Think staying
aligned on java is not that bad.
Le 10 avr. 2015 22:43, "Inderjeet Singh" <inder_at_alumni.stanford.edu> a
écrit :
> In Gson, we agonized over this issue periodically.
>
> In the end, I think our current approach works. Just support fields
> (public or private), and ignore methods. The developers should use custom
> type adapters for anything more complicated.
>
> Inder
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
>> Well issue supporting private fields by default is you dont expose
>> correct payload (API for REST endpoint!!) if you need any internal
>> variable which is super risky compared to have to activate field visibility
>> manually.
>>
>> That said I am happy while it is customizable.
>> Le 10 avr. 2015 20:38, "Eugen Cepoi" <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-04-10 20:11 GMT+02:00 Martin Vojtek <voytoo_at_gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Interesting point of view. I was thinking mainly about deser scenario
>>>> and no mixin.
>>>>
>>>> I still see public fields more like a not so good design decision
>>>> (instead of public contract).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Depends, public final fields look good to me (only if final). Esp. when
>>> it is supposed to exclusively hold "public" data.
>>> But I guess it is more of a religion if you are alergic to get/set or
>>> not - as you can guess I am :)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think there are two regular cases:
>>>>
>>>> 1. class with all fields private with get/set methods
>>>>
>>>> 2. class with just non public fields
>>>>
>>>> Other not so good cases (by design) :)
>>>>
>>>> - class with all fields public (no get/set)
>>>>
>>>> - class with mix of fields and get/set methods.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I still think it is better to support all these cases. If user
>>>> doesn't want some property to be serialized into json, he could put
>>>> annotation or transient keyword on the given field or set/get method.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah sure but it could be the other way too, only public + annotate what
>>> else you want to include or configure your instance of Jsonb to do so.
>>> Anyway, if there is a option to configure visibility in Jsonb (without
>>> annotations) I am fine with it.
>>>
>>> Eugen
>>>
>>>
>>>> What do others think about support of private fields by default?
>>>>
>>>
>>>> MartinV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just some insights about mixing by default public and private...
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-04-08 20:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vojtek <voytoo_at_gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I vote for the following (default mapping):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - support private fields (private fields are good habit in Java)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing ser/de by using private fields when at the same time one uses
>>>>> public contract can be source of problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a user
>>>>> - I want to ser/de all the private fields when I am doing some RPC
>>>>> because on the other side I will use this technical low level
>>>>> representation to provide the same contract other the private data (in this
>>>>> situation I just don't want the lib to look at methods, but take all the
>>>>> private fields except transient/static).
>>>>>
>>>>> - I want to ser/de using public methods and fields to expose a kind
>>>>> of API/public data. In this situation I don't want the lib to pick my
>>>>> private fields because they are the way I internally represent stuff, the
>>>>> consumer doesn't have to know about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's also the logic I followed when making Genson. I think exposing
>>>>> both by default is wrong...(but one can still use the annotations from a
>>>>> field and apply them to a method, just not ser/de protected/private stuff
>>>>> by default)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - support get/set
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is get/set, use it.
>>>>>> If there is just field, use it.
>>>>>> If there is just get/set and no field, use get/set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other options should be configurable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MartinV
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2015-04-08 10:17 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Dev <hendrikdev22_at_gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (sorry, wrong list)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>> From: Hendrik Dev <hendrikdev22_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:16 AM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [jsonb-spec users] Re: [jsr367-experts] Re: Re: Re:
>>>>>>>> [30-GenericTypeSupport] Proposal
>>>>>>>> To: users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would say: Support all variants (fields and/or (getters/setters))
>>>>>>>> including private fields and by default use only getter/setters (and
>>>>>>>> no fields). Thats what the most users would expect AFAIK.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In genson I include public fields by default, it sounds natural to
>>>>>>> me as the public methods and fields define the "exposed" contract about the
>>>>>>> data. Then users can customize it as they want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dont know if just getters or just setters is really useful, IMHO it
>>>>>>>> complicates the thing without adding real value (can be done with
>>>>>>>> @Ignore if really necessary)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We do this in Johnzon via AccessMode
>>>>>>>> (
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-johnzon/blob/master/johnzon-mapper/src/main/java/org/apache/johnzon/mapper/access/AccessMode.java
>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Hendrik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Oleg Tsal-Tsalko <
>>>>>>>> oleg.tsalko_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Hi guys,
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > My vote (if it counts) is to definitely support by default all
>>>>>>>> variants
>>>>>>>> > (e.g. fields/getters/setters) in all combinations (e.g.
>>>>>>>> getters+setters or
>>>>>>>> > just getters or just setters even if it silly usage from user
>>>>>>>> perspective) +
>>>>>>>> > with private access.
>>>>>>>> > The only thing we need to decide on relative priorities to
>>>>>>>> resolve ties if
>>>>>>>> > any.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Thank you,
>>>>>>>> > Oleg
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > 2015-04-07 22:16 GMT+03:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Le 7 avr. 2015 21:07, "Eugen Cepoi" <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com> a
>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > 2015-04-07 20:48 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> Le 7 avr. 2015 20:27, "Eugen Cepoi" <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> > 2015-04-07 20:05 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> Hi
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> This topic is very interesting but I think we should just
>>>>>>>> align by
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> default on javabeans and allow a configuration (+api) for
>>>>>>>> other usages which
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> are widely spread over applications.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> So I propose:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> - default: getter/setter only, no field check at all,
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> > I think it is more friendly to have public methods and
>>>>>>>> fields (for
>>>>>>>> >> >> > example if one has a immutable pojo with all fields public).
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> Fair enough
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> support of addX for collections and maybe getter in write
>>>>>>>> mode as in
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> jaxb.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> > I am hesitating for addX not sure I like it...
>>>>>>>> >> >> > What is getter in write mode?
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> getMyCollection().add(xx) instead of just using
>>>>>>>> setMyCollection(col)
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > Ok I understand better what you mean. I can see only 2 use
>>>>>>>> cases for
>>>>>>>> >> > this: when adding stuff to the list the pojo is doing
>>>>>>>> something (increment a
>>>>>>>> >> > counter for example) or updating an existing instance (kind of
>>>>>>>> merge).
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Well jaxb does it cause setColl makes the API not that natural I
>>>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> > I don't think we provide any merge solution now so point 2 is
>>>>>>>> excluded
>>>>>>>> >> > and 1 is still valid even if I don't like it :)
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> +0, being aligned on other specs would be nice as well. JPA
>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>> >> without merges then added it to make it smooth for users. When
>>>>>>>> we dont know
>>>>>>>> >> or there is a conflict it is easy to fail - like jaxb.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > Eugen
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> I like it cause it really exposes an API and not internals.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> - a shortcut in config api to use fields (either only or in
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> cumulative mode) - this is too common to not be handled
>>>>>>>> and the default in
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> most ee API (JPA for instance)
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> - add in API an abstraction for it for advanced mode and
>>>>>>>> evolutions
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> (Accessor, and AccessorFinder - I am not happy of the
>>>>>>>> naming but was to
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> share the idea). It would allow to add processor on the
>>>>>>>> accessors to filter
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> or remap them pretty easily. It makes trivial remapping,
>>>>>>>> version and
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> blacklist handling for instance.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> Le 7 avr. 2015 19:57, "Martin Vojtek" <voytoo_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> It would be great to hear opinions from others on this
>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> Current JSON-B proposal is to by default ser/deser only
>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> where field is present. Specifically, if there is field
>>>>>>>> and set/get method,
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> set/get method is used. If there is not set/get method,
>>>>>>>> field is used. If
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> there is no field, but get/set method, it is not used
>>>>>>>> (JSON-B will not
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> consider this property). This behavior should be
>>>>>>>> customizable. Maybe it is
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> too restrictive and if there is getter and no field,
>>>>>>>> getter should be used.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> What if there are methods not intended to be getters?
>>>>>>>> What if there is
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> method isValue and getValue?
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> For properties that are being renamed ... I can imagine
>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> annotations.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> MartinV
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Eugen Cepoi <
>>>>>>>> cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Oh, yes, in fact this is something I did on purpose for
>>>>>>>> a couple
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> of reasons. One of them is to allow people to ser types
>>>>>>>> based on some
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> "parent type". For example if a class implements several
>>>>>>>> interfaces and we
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> want to serialize using only one "aspect" of the
>>>>>>>> instance.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> The other reasons are more opinionated :)
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> So in JSONB how do you see things, would we ser only
>>>>>>>> properties
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> that have a field+get+set? I would prefer not or at
>>>>>>>> least provide a config
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> for it.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> However something that is a bit similar, from what I've
>>>>>>>> seen,
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> merging annotations from field/get/set is the good way
>>>>>>>> to go. Initially I
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> thought it would be better to decouple ser from deser
>>>>>>>> aspect. But in the end
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> I found that from an usage point of view, people expect
>>>>>>>> that annotations
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> that have been put on the field are being used also for
>>>>>>>> get and set. The
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> issue with this is how would one handle properties that
>>>>>>>> are being renamed? I
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> am quite interested in others opinion on this as I
>>>>>>>> couldn't make my mind yet
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> :)
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Eugen
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>> 2015-04-07 16:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Vojtek <
>>>>>>>> voytoo_at_gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> The example I was thinking about is following:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> interface FunctionalInterface<T> {
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> public T getValue();
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> }
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> Genson:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> public void test() {
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> FunctionalInterface<String> myFunction = () ->
>>>>>>>> {return
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> "value1";};
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> assertEquals("{\"value\":\"value1\"}",
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> genson.serialize(myFunction));
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> }
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> Proposed JSON-B:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> FunctionalInterface<String> myFunction = () -> {return
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> "value1";};
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> assertEquals("{}", jsonb.toJson(myFunction));
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> The difference is in handling getters when there is no
>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> MartinV
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Eugen Cepoi
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> 2015-04-06 22:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Vojtek <
>>>>>>>> voytoo_at_gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> response inlined.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Oleg Tsal-Tsalko
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> <oleg.tsalko_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Feedback on generic mapping serialization examples:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> 1) Why there are no examples of actual usage of
>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Jsonb#toJson(Object, Type) method?
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> I assume these examples should justify usage of this
>>>>>>>> advanced
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> method in those special/tricky cases where
>>>>>>>> Jsonb#toJson(Object) method is
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> not enough.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Will add example:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> List<java.util.Optional<String>> expected =
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Arrays.asList(Optional.empty(),
>>>>>>>> Optional.ofNullable("first"),
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Optional.of("second"));
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> String json = toJson(expected,
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DefaultMappingGenerics.class.getField("listOfOptionalStringField").getGenericType());
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> assertEquals("[null,\"first\",\"second\"]",json);
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> 2) Probably it was missed by me but are we going to
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> serialization of anonymous interfaces/classes
>>>>>>>> implementations at all?
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> As an example:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> myFunction = new FunctionalInterface<String>() {
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> private String value = "initValue";
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> @Override public String getValue() {
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> return value;
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> public void setValue(String value) {
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> this.value = value;
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> assertEquals("{\"value\":\"initValue\"}",
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> jsonb.toJson(myFunction));
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> It doesn't look like valid scenarios to support.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> AFAIK, Gson lib doesn't support this...
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Don't see reason why it is not valid scenario.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Genson supports it (with different result in some
>>>>>>>> cases as
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> proposed JSON-B) :)
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Heh looks like you had an in depth look at it :) In
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> situation did it produce different or undexpected
>>>>>>>> results?
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I added it because the effort to support it was not so
>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> and this can be of some use. But this looks like a
>>>>>>>> rare use case so I am not
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> feeling strongly for or against it. I don't feel so
>>>>>>>> concerned by the
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> examples as IMO they are just examples and its OK if
>>>>>>>> they don't cover all
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> the API (after all it is not the spec).
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> About supporting deser missing properties I 100% agree
>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> remark but think it should be expressed as a config
>>>>>>>> option that would make
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> things clear that impl. have to support this feature
>>>>>>>> (and don't really care
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> about the example).
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I wonder if providing those examples doesn't make
>>>>>>>> things more
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> confusing about what is the contract that impls should
>>>>>>>> respect.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Eugen
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> It would be helpful to hear some opinions from others
>>>>>>>> on this
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> 3) Expected result in bounded example doesn't look
>>>>>>>> right:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> assertEquals("{\"boundedSet\":[3],\"superList\":[{\"radius\":2.5}]}",
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> jsonb.toJson(boundedGenericClass));
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> I believe it should be:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {"boundedSet":[3],"superList":[{"area":0.0,"radius":2.5}]}
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Will fix asap.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Have a great Easter!
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Oleg
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22)
>>>>>>>> @hendrikdev22
>>>>>>>> PGP: 0x22D7F6EC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22)
>>>>>>>> @hendrikdev22
>>>>>>>> PGP: 0x22D7F6EC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>