2015-04-20 20:35 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2015-04-20 19:40 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>>
>> I understand, that's where we don't see it the exact same way. You
>> merge it by name where I would merge it by java model with standard
>> order. So basically I'd do a reduce (java) then validation (json side
>> if we can call it this way).
>
>
> Ah ok, so you would only merge by the name of the field or method.
> This is viable but would force to make a distinction between resolved name
> using java bean convention and other naming strategies (annotation, custom
> user strategy etc). For Genson I prefered to have only one name resolution
> system and use it always the same way, there are less "rules" involved
> making things easier to understand.
> But it can have some advantages to make the distinction...
>
yes basically all is resolved on java side then we can check
@JsonProperty (supposed it is the right name) to check the name to
use, if not present use the one deduced from java. Merge is less
aggressive and allows few validations.
>>
>> Doesnt impact performances.
>
>
> True, doing it on the resolved java model (with renamed or not properties)
> doesn't change the perfs.
>
>>
>>
>> Now the real question is: do we gain anything compared to what you
>> propose ie ensuring we don't have conflicts. I still think it can make
>> sense to validate there isn't a "model conflict". Implicit merging can
>> be hard to debug from my experience.
>
>
> So you would throw an exception for example if there are two properties with
> the same name in a class and its parent?
> If yes then we should make sure of the "rules" applied as there might be
> ambiguous situations. How do you think we should distinguish valid from
> invalid conflicts for renamed properties?
>
We can have rules like "an overriden method is not a conflict if a
field is not hiding parent one" etc but we can also do like in bean
validation and define inheritance API. A bit more verbose but clearer
IMO (+ does it really happen often in real life?). Something like
@OverrideJsonAttribute("parentName").
>>
>> That said if we ensure the
>> framework logs it properly (level = warn + logger name =
>> javax.json.something) then it would work for me as well.
>
>
> I would prefer to just throw an exception or consider it as valid rather
> than log a warn.
>
Works, just want it to be visible and not too implicit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>> 2015-04-20 19:34 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2015-04-20 19:28 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>> >>
>> >> well not supporting the validation for custom serialization code
>> >> doesnt sound like a big issue for me but it doesn't prevent to
>> >> validate the model. I didn't speak of the merging but for instance 2
>> >> different methods/fields decorated with @JsonProperty(name="foo").
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes I was including renamed properties in that and by merging I was
>> > meaning
>> > take N properties (field/method/ctr) and reduce it to one (how you
>> > achieve
>> > it is up to the impl).
>> > To me renamed or original name is the same, as I first resolve the names
>> > and
>> > then do all the selection/merging stuff.
>> > Amongst others, this allows to override in subclasses things from parent
>> > classes - by using the same name.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For me just doing it already matches the intention behind I-JSON.
>> >>
>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >> @rmannibucau
>> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2015-04-20 19:24 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>> >> > I think doing it on the model is something else as basically you
>> >> > already
>> >> > merge detected properties, so you end up with only one.
>> >> > At least that's what I do in Genson, I give preference to the
>> >> > detected
>> >> > properties (methods/fields/whatever else) by hierarchy (from most
>> >> > concrete
>> >> > to the "highest" parent). And the compiler provides already some
>> >> > safeguards.
>> >> >
>> >> > Still all that doesn't solve the problem of colliding properties
>> >> > being
>> >> > written by the user (via some custom ser. code).
>> >> > But well... we can't always prevent people from doing stupid things
>> >> > :)
>> >> >
>> >> > 2015-04-20 19:11 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2015-04-20 19:05 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2015-04-19 19:44 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hi Martin
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> for me it makes sense to support it by default with a flag like
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> one you proposed to switch it off (a bit off topic but do we have
>> >> >> >> constants for these flags, something like
>> >> >> >> Jsonb.I_JSON_COMPLIANCE?).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> UTF8 by default is quite mandatory IMO, must-ignore as well
>> >> >> >> (already
>> >> >> >> discussed IIRC). ISO8601 is the standard for dates of most of
>> >> >> >> frameworks, big numbers need to be string whatever we do so
>> >> >> >> finally
>> >> >> >> open points from my window are:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> - byte data as base64: on johnzon we discussed it and I didn't
>> >> >> >> want
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> cause it was far from Java - that said it is not a super common
>> >> >> >> type
>> >> >> >> so not sure it is that important
>> >> >> >> - top level construct: don't recall the spec but I think
>> >> >> >> primitives
>> >> >> >> (string, numbers) can be supported as well. Jackson does it at
>> >> >> >> least
>> >> >> >> so +1 to not support this fail fast behavior
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I don't think there is much value in being too restrictive, +1 for
>> >> >> > it.
>> >> >> > I don't remember any discussion about accepting to deser. numbers
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > strings, strings as numbers etc when possible, but it would be
>> >> >> > nice.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> - no members with duplicate name: the only point I don't know.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This one is painful as it has an impact on performances (esp. if
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > want
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > prevent user custom code to generate such output)... at the moment
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > don't
>> >> >> > support it in Genson for this reason.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can't we do it on the model (ie once for the whole application
>> >> >> lifecycle)? I guess here we are lucky compared to JSON-P.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Intellij Idea makes this kind of JON invalid. This is something
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> would need to be able to switch off but I think it makes sense to
>> >> >> >> have
>> >> >> >> it by default to detect wrong models.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >> >> >> @rmannibucau
>> >> >> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >> >> >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> >> >> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2015-04-18 19:53 GMT+02:00 Martin Vojtek <voytoo_at_gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> > Hi Experts,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > JSON-B should provide support or some level of compliance with
>> >> >> >> > I-JSON
>> >> >> >> > specification.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > There are several things to discuss.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Should JSON-B support I-JSON by default? My proposal is to not
>> >> >> >> > support
>> >> >> >> > all
>> >> >> >> > the recommendations of I-JSON by default.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > If we agree on that, what specific parts of I-JSON should
>> >> >> >> > JSON-B
>> >> >> >> > provide
>> >> >> >> > by
>> >> >> >> > default?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Proposal of parts (of I-JSON) to support by JSON-B by default:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Should be supported by default:
>> >> >> >> > - Encoding and Characters (UTF-8 by default)
>> >> >> >> > - Object constraints (no members with duplicate name)
>> >> >> >> > - MUST-IGNORE policy - partial mapping
>> >> >> >> > - Time and Date Handling - serialize accoring to I-JSON
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Should not be supported by default:
>> >> >> >> > - Numbers - serialize big number(s) into string (and deser
>> >> >> >> > given
>> >> >> >> > strings
>> >> >> >> > into number)
>> >> >> >> > - Top-Level Constructs - fail fast when ser/deser something
>> >> >> >> > different
>> >> >> >> > than
>> >> >> >> > object/array as top-level JSON
>> >> >> >> > - binary data encoded as a string in base64url
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > To support I-JSON fully in some case, I propose to provide
>> >> >> >> > I-JSON
>> >> >> >> > compatibility mode available via config property.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > JsonbConfig config = new
>> >> >> >> > JsonbConfig().setProperty("jsonb.i-json.compliance", true);
>> >> >> >> > Jsonb jsonb = JsonbBuilder.create(config);
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Looking forward to your feedback.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > MartinV
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>