I think I misinterpreted what Kevin said. I agree that using annotations is preferable, although name based matching can be also left in place, in case annotations are not present, as I mentioned, for imported classes.
On 10/10/08 3:33 PM, "Aleksey Perfilov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > True, and of course we do that for our own classes. But in case you end up > using some other class that comes from standard Java or some library, you > can't annotate that. Perhaps using an adapter in some way might be the only > way then. > > Besides, I actually don't see annotations being taken into account in > BeanJsonConverter code. It just grabs all methods that start with "get" when > converting object to json. Actually, I just noticed that in the Person class > from org.apache.shindig.social.opensocial.model, getGender is not annotated, > neither is getUtcOffset, yet both of them are converted to json. > > Aleksey > > > On 10/10/08 2:36 PM, "Kevin Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think it would make more sense to use annotations on the beans instead of >> doing name based matching. That way you're always explicit in what you >> export and don't have problems like this. >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Aleksey Perfilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I¹ve had problems using BeanJsonConverter on objects that contain getters >>> that have 1 or more arguments. >>> Since convertMethodsToJson() expects not to see any arguments on getters, >>> invoke() will crash on getters that have some. >>> >>> Do you think we should adjust getMatchingMethods() to filter out getters >>> that require parameters? Or just skip those getters in >>> convertMethodsToJson(). >>> I think it is reasonable to assume we don¹t need those for conversion >>> purposes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Aleksey >>> >>> >
