On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Aleksey Perfilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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. That doesn't actually address the issue. If you import class X and it has method getFoo(xxx), it doesn't work. An adapter is definitely preferrable for that. > > > > 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 > >>> > >>> > > > >
