that's why I propose to contact JSR 250 or CDI spec (that's thanks to them
JSR 250 will get another release for EE 8)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2016-04-27 19:24 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
> Yeah I know but having a type token pop in every jsr/component of java ee
> wouldn't be serious...
>
>
> 2016-04-27 10:17 GMT-07:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>
>> Such an API is great cause you keep the return type typed vs Type usage
>> which goes back on object cause of type erasure but if EE can provide a
>> common annotation I'm to rely on it. If not Type is good enough for jsonb 1.
>> Le 27 avr. 2016 19:06, "Eugen Cepoi" <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Yeah we already discussed it. If the user needs access to an instance of
>>> java.lang.reflect.Type it can get it from elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Romain, are you saying that you want to provide an API with auto
>>> discovery to create generic types?
>>>
>>> 2016-04-27 6:33 GMT-07:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Not sure I fully got it but the idea was for vendors to provide an
>>>> extension api/module with an implementation of ParameterizedType: new
>>>> VendorParameterizedType<Map<String, MyPojo>>(Map.class, new Type[] {
>>>> String.class, Mypojo.class }) // or same using reflection to get the types
>>>> but it is slower and has some pitfalls as seen in CDI API.
>>>>
>>>> If we can get such API (with auto or not discovery) in JSR 250 we are
>>>> very good IMO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>>
>>>> 2016-04-27 15:18 GMT+02:00 Roman Grigoriadi <
>>>> roman.grigoriadi_at_oracle.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Another preference to use such token is elimination of instance
>>>>> creation or extension. I thought that GenericType user may wish to
>>>>> deserialize into may be havy for instantiation in contrast to such token.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example what will you pass in method receiving Type for
>>>>> deserialization in a result of Map<String, MyPojo> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Roman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/27/2016 03:08 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Roman,
>>>>>
>>>>> think we spoke about it and decided to not do it cause it was already
>>>>> everywhere with different API (JAXRS -
>>>>> <http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericType.html>
>>>>> http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericType.html,
>>>>> CDI -
>>>>> http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/enterprise/util/TypeLiteral.html,
>>>>> ...) and using Type is enough. Issue is you loose the type safety with Type
>>>>> (guess that's why you ask).
>>>>>
>>>>> I know JSR 250 will get another release, would be awesome if we could
>>>>> get in touch with this spec (and maybe EE/CDI/JAXRS) to get a common
>>>>> annotation for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can I'm clearly +1 otherwise I think implementations can provide
>>>>> this on top of Type until we get such an API.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it make sense? I can ping CDI list about that if you want.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau
>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-04-27 14:57 GMT+02:00 Roman Grigoriadi <
>>>>> roman.grigoriadi_at_oracle.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi experts,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how about to include a class for holding info about generic types in
>>>>>> API:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public abstract class TypeInfo<T> {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> private final Type type; protected TypeInfo() {
>>>>>> //type extracted from <T>
>>>>>> } public Type getType() {
>>>>>> return type;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such helper is present in Gson as TypeToken and in Jackson as
>>>>>> TypeReference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jsonb methods with "Type runtimeType" argument will than be
>>>>>> interchanged with "TypeInfo runtimeTypeInfo" arg.
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <T> T fromJson(Reader reader, Type runtimeType)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <T> T fromJson(Reader reader, TypeInfo<T> runtimeType)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Returning <T> instance in second case is type safe, and eliminates
>>>>>> need of creation anonymous class instance (or class extension) of
>>>>>> (de)serialized a Java type.
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List<MyPojo> result1 = jsonb.fromJson(jsonString, new TypeToken<List<MyPojo>>(){});
>>>>>>
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ArrayList<MyPojo>> result = jsonb.fromJson(jsonString, new ArrayList<MyPojo>>(){});
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT? Thanks, Roman
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>