groovy

Enable JsonBuilder to work with objects recursively

Details

  • Type: Improvement Improvement
  • Status: Closed Closed
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: 1.8.0
  • Fix Version/s: 1.8.1, 1.9-beta-1
  • Component/s: JSON
  • Labels:
    None
  • Number of attachments :
    0

Description

Currently this code:

def myObject = new MyObject()

def json = new JsonBuilder();
json myObject;
println JsonOutput.prettyPrint(json.toString())

Prints something like:

[
    "MyObject@28db23f1"
]

My suggestion:
Introspect the object and transfer each property to json, with recursive calls for objects.

Having looked at JsonOutput.groovy and the toJson(object) method this should be easy to implement and hugely useful!

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Guillaume Laforge made changes -
Field Original Value New Value
Description Currently this code:

def myObject = new MyObject()

def json = new JsonBuilder();
json myObject;
println JsonOutput.prettyPrint(json.toString())



prints something like

[
    "MyObject@28db23f1"
]


My suggestion:
Introspect the object and transfer each property to json, with recursive calls for objects.


Having looked at JsonOutput.groovy and the toJson(object) method this should be easy to implement and hugely useful!

Currently this code:
{code}
def myObject = new MyObject()

def json = new JsonBuilder();
json myObject;
println JsonOutput.prettyPrint(json.toString())
{code}

Prints something like:

{code}
[
    "MyObject@28db23f1"
]
{code}


My suggestion:
Introspect the object and transfer each property to json, with recursive calls for objects.


Having looked at JsonOutput.groovy and the toJson(object) method this should be easy to implement and hugely useful!

Hide
Permalink
Guillaume Laforge added a comment -

When working on the JSON support, I've also thought about that marshalling/unmarshalling support.
Also in my ideas back then was the ability to customize the serialization with supporting a custom toJson() method to personalize the default output (and you could also think of other annotations to exclude certain properties, and other fancy ideas like that).
But so far, we've decided to keep things simple, and not go beyong the current support that we have now. I don't say we can't revisit that decision at all, but I'm wondering if we should go as far a what full-blown frameworks like Jackson, XStream and others do better than what we could really tackle (they are projects on their own).
So I'm curious to see if others think we should go further, or stick to something simpler. It's up for debate!

Show
Guillaume Laforge added a comment - When working on the JSON support, I've also thought about that marshalling/unmarshalling support. Also in my ideas back then was the ability to customize the serialization with supporting a custom toJson() method to personalize the default output (and you could also think of other annotations to exclude certain properties, and other fancy ideas like that). But so far, we've decided to keep things simple, and not go beyong the current support that we have now. I don't say we can't revisit that decision at all, but I'm wondering if we should go as far a what full-blown frameworks like Jackson, XStream and others do better than what we could really tackle (they are projects on their own). So I'm curious to see if others think we should go further, or stick to something simpler. It's up for debate!
Hide
Permalink
Axel Fontaine added a comment -

Hi Guillaume,

I certainly agree that adding a toJson() method would be a poor choice as it would force every class to know about Json building.

I also agree that adding an annotation to exclude a certain property is something that can always be done later.

Adding simple recursive marshalling (no exclusions, no configuration) is something, however, that would be tremendously useful and relatively easy to implement. This would no compromise the simplicity aspect of the current implementation. It is a low-hanging fruit that brings large benefits at little cost.

Cheers,
Axel

Show
Axel Fontaine added a comment - Hi Guillaume, I certainly agree that adding a toJson() method would be a poor choice as it would force every class to know about Json building. I also agree that adding an annotation to exclude a certain property is something that can always be done later. Adding simple recursive marshalling (no exclusions, no configuration) is something, however, that would be tremendously useful and relatively easy to implement. This would no compromise the simplicity aspect of the current implementation. It is a low-hanging fruit that brings large benefits at little cost. Cheers, Axel
Guillaume Laforge made changes -
Component/s JSON [ 14751 ]
Guillaume Laforge made changes -
Assignee Guillaume Laforge [ guillaume ]
Guillaume Laforge made changes -
Status Open [ 1 ] Resolved [ 5 ]
Fix Version/s 1.8.1 [ 17223 ]
Fix Version/s 1.9-beta-1 [ 17153 ]
Resolution Fixed [ 1 ]
Paul King made changes -
Status Resolved [ 5 ] Closed [ 6 ]

People

  • Assignee:
    Guillaume Laforge
    Reporter:
    Axel Fontaine
Vote (0)
Watch (1)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved: