On 05/10/2016 08:14 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Ok, let step back. Before all *technically* I fully agree with you.
> Why I defend a different position is from my experience a lot of
> people will not be able to use such an API so i'm trying to ensure our
> API is adopted whatever use case we support.
Whats wrong with JsonParser API from user perspective? If JsonStructure
is needed instead of event driven api, it can be provided by mapper API
(as Eugene mentioned). JsonParser will be at START_OBJECT position when
passed to deserializer, so user can get JsonStructure for whole
deserializer root/return type. Furthermore, according to JSONP master
branch, looks like there will be methods for getting
JsonArray/JsonObject directly on JsonParser since JSONP 1.1 release.
>
> Secondly the fact jsonp doesnt support writeKey()writeValue() doesnt
> prevent us to do it (we actually do since we have the key before the
> value in the mapper model ;)).
Didn't get this one, we do writeStartObject(String key), and
writeEndObject() in the mapper.
>
> It means I think we can go for Eugen proposal BUT to support my case
> too we would need a subclass/abstract impl giving the JsonReader
> (read(parser, Object) doesn't work, see polymorphism thread).
>
> Would it be a good compromise?
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
> 2016-05-10 0:46 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>>:
>
> Ahh damn I remember now... in jsonp we have a separate methods to
> be used inside objects which takes the key and others without the
> key, but you can't first write the key and then write the
> value...which sucks. I should have insisted more on that :p
>
> So in short my comment is irrelevant as I was assuming that we
> have writeName+writeValue methods in JsonGenerator...so yeah in
> this case there is no choice, we need serialize methods that take
> a key and another that doesn't... :(
>
> 2016-05-09 15:22 GMT-07:00 Dmitry Kornilov
> <dmitry.kornilov_at_oracle.com <mailto:dmitry.kornilov_at_oracle.com>>:
>
>
>> I also think that passing jsonp parser/generator as an
>> argument is OK. The question here is that we are forcing
>> implementations to use parser/generator. What if (as
>> Romain mentioned somewhere in this thread) some
>> implementations will use reader/writer as a parsing
>> mechanism? Shall we consider this option? Folks, I need
>> you opinion here.
>>
>>
>> JsonReader/writer just deal with the full dom structures, to
>> get a dom structure one could simply do
>> ctx.deserialize(JsonObject.class, stream).
>> So I think it is just fine and is the right thing to do: use
>> the low level jsonp api.
>
> Agree.
>
>> But there is another use case. What if we have a list
>> inside an object we are serializing.
>>
>> public class Create {
>> public List items;
>> }
>>
>> For some reason we don’t want to serialize items list
>> using context.serialize(“items”, crate.items, generator).
>> We want to serialize each item manually in a cycle.
>>
>> generator.writeStartArray();
>> for (Object item in crate.items) {
>> // Ooops! We don’t have a method to write an object
>> without a key in SerializationContext
>> // It should be something like this
>> *context.serialize(item, generator); // This is a new
>> method to add I was talking about*
>> }
>> generator.writeEnd();
>>
>>
>> Not sure if I followed everything (I have been busy with
>> other things lately), but IMO the context should not provide
>> different methods for arrays, objects etc. Only one that
>> takes an object, a generator and eventually a type (if we
>> want to allow a user to say serialize object of type B but
>> using his super type A). One could pass to it arrays, lists,
>> pojos, primitives, whatever he wants and it will get
>> serialized/deser using the registered serializers for that type.
>> I hope I am not adding more confusion here…if you want some
>> code examples let me know.
>
> Yes, I think we have some misunderstanding here. Below I
> copied our latest version of SerializationContext interface to
> make it clear. As you see there are no methods for arrays,
> lists, etc. The method I was talking about above is marked bold.
>
> public interface SerializationContext {
>
> /**
> * Serializes arbitrary object to JSON, using current
> {_at_link javax.json.stream.JsonGenerator} instance.
> *
> * @param key JSON key name
> * @param object object to serialize
> * @param generator JSONP generator to serialize with
> * @param <T> Type of serialized object
> */
> <T> void serialize(String key, T object, JsonGenerator
> generator);
>
> * /**
> * Serializes arbitrary object to JSON, using current
> {_at_link javax.json.stream.JsonGenerator} instance.
> *
> * @param object object to serialize
> * @param generator JSONP generator to serialize with
> * @param <T> Type of serialized object
> */
> <T> void serialize(T object, JsonGenerator generator);*
>
> /**
> * Converts string value into provided type. String value
> has to be single JSON value, not a part
> * of a JSON document representing JSON object.
> *
> * @param obj object to convert to string
> * @param generator JSONP generator to serialize with
> * @param <T> type of object
> *
> * @return converted string value
> * @throws javax.json.bind.JsonbException if conversion of
> given type is not supported
> */
> <T> String convertDefault(T obj, JsonGenerator generator);
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
>
>
>