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
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.
On 10/10/08 2:36 PM, "Kevin Brown" <et...@google.com> 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 <aper...@hi5.com>wrote:
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
I think it is reasonable to assume we don¹t need those for conversion