2015-04-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Inderjeet Singh <inder_at_alumni.stanford.edu>:
> I stand by my assertions on good coding practices and there is plenty of
> literature to support them. Briefly,
> 1. Public fields break encapsulation so should be avoided.
> 2. Immutability enhances thread-safety, and avoid unintended side-effects
> (you can safely return internal objects in methods without worrying about
> someone modifying them).
>
> However, I agree that there are no absolutes and mutability has its place.
> That is why these are good practices, not requirements.
>
> My problem is when a technology makes it hard or impossible for me to
> follow these practices. For example, JPA forces me to make my fields
> mutable. I don't like that a single bit.
> On the contrary, Gson encourages you to define fields as private final,
> thus enabling encapsulation and immutability.
>
Serializing private fields is breaking this encapsulation.
I think having public *final* fields is fine and don't feel it as a bad
practice, or at least it depends on the use case. Anyway until people can
configure their Jsonb instance to support whatever they like, I am fine
with it.
About immutability, the best solution IMO is to support constructors with
arguments (not generating ctrs via Unsafe or passing null/default values or
expecting people to write custom code). That's how I am trying to encourage
immutability in Genson - for now it works pretty well.
Eugen
> I consider that to be a better design. JSR-367 should follow similar
> principles.
>
> Inder
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 11 avr. 2015 16:24, "Inderjeet Singh" <inder_at_alumni.stanford.edu> a
>> écrit :
>> >
>> > The design should encourage great coding practices. Supporting public
>> fields will do the opposite.
>> >
>>
>> Yes and no. It makes sense in some cases. I'd let it up to users and
>> their programming model.
>>
> > Another great coding practice is making classes immutable. Which means
>> no setters either.
>> >
>>
>> Why? This is wrong in the absolute but right in some context like message
>> passing pattern usage. Someone could say you immutable is bad cause of
>> memory profile it mandates.
>>
>> Here I would just align on java ie supporting accessors AND constructor
>> usage (being aligned on javabeans let user do what he wants without forcing
>> one of both patterns)
>>
>> > Inder
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Martin Vojtek <voytoo_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alright, I don't see big enthusiasm for the idea of private fields
>> included in default mapping :)
>> >>
>> >> So, the second proposal is as follows:
>> >>
>> >> - support public fields
>> >> - support get/set
>> >>
>> >> If there is get/set, use it.
>> >> If there is just public field, use it.
>> >> If there is just get/set and no field, use get/set.
>> >>
>> >> Other options should be configurable.
>> >>
>> >> MartinV
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>