Adapters might be painful, depending on how complex the class that's imported and how many such classes there are.
If all the getters with parameters are simply ignored and we only invoke getFoo(), it will work. If a getter needs some parameters it's not really a simple accessor that's meant for serialization. Of course I'm not certain that all classes will be able to be properly de-serialized from resulting json, but it won't make things worse because right now they would not work for sure :) For example I have a calendar class that has such accessors, plus other fields that are classes with such accessors, and when I locally modify shindig to ignore getFoo(xxx) type of getters then it works. On 10/10/08 4:13 PM, "Kevin Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>
