Creating WithoutRoot annotation to force JSON deserialization without root.

[renanigt]

Related: #657.

As I said there, I think the best way is to create another annotation, because many user use something like @Consumes("application/json"), so if we add another attribute as @jayrmotta said, it doesn't work.

What do you think @lucascs @garcia-jj @Turini ?

[renanigt]

I used the annotation aproach suggested by @lucascs.

[Turini]

Move to serialization's package please

[Turini]

Please add docs at VRaptor's site.

[Turini]

Add the docs here, in the same PR. it will be merged after 4.1.0.Final release. Ok?

[renanigt]

Ok @Turini.
I'll do this.

Thanks.

[renanigt]

Done with refactoring.

What do you think ? @Turini

Today I'll write docs.

[renanigt]

I did a simple text on docs.

What do you think ?

[garcia-jj]

What you think to use Consumes.withoutRoot(true/false) instead a new annotation?

[renanigt]

If I understand you're saying to use @Consumes annotation.

Is it ?

Sorry if I'm wrong.

[renanigt]

@garcia-jj sorry, but I think that I didn't understand your suggestion. 😒

[garcia-jj]

Instead of using a new annotation, add a field into Consumes annotation
called withoutRoot using false as default value.

And change your code to check this new field to use or not root element.

[renanigt]

Adding another field, we'll don't have problem with something like this: @Consumes("application/json") ?

[garcia-jj]

Nope. Try it.
On Jul 29, 2014 1:37 PM, "Renan Montenegro" notifications@github.com
wrote:

Adding another field, we'll don't have problem with something like this:
@consumes("application/json") ?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#713 (comment).

[renanigt]

The value passed into @Consumes as in @Consumes("application/json") is just to value attribute ?

[garcia-jj]

Yes. You can use like this:

@consumes("blah") is equal to @consumes(value="blah")
On Jul 29, 2014 1:47 PM, "Renan Montenegro" notifications@github.com
wrote:

The value passed into @consumes as @consumes("application/json") is just
to value attribute ?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#713 (comment).

[renanigt]

Good idea @garcia-jj. Thanks.

What do you think now ?

[garcia-jj]

@WithoutRoot don't exists anymore.

[lucascs]

It's probably ugly, but we could have something like:

@Consumes(options=WithoutRoot.class)

and options is Class<? extends DeserializerConfig>[]

and:

interface DeserializerConfig {
    void config(Deserializer deserializer);
}

or something like this.

Sorry to get at this discussion too late =/

[lucascs]

This solution supports things like:

class NoPassword implements DeserializerConfig {
    public void config(Deserializer deserializer) {
       deserializer.exclude("password");
    }
}

//...
@Consumes(value="application/json", options={WithoutRoot.class, NoPassword.class})
public void update(User user) {...}

[renanigt]

The Deserializer interface just has the deserialize method.

The exclude method is from Serializer interface.

[renanigt]

But it's a good idea.

[lucascs]

The point is to implement this extension ;)

[lucascs]

Any suggestions, @Turini @garcia-jj ? we could use Serializee, or Deserializee, or any other thing like this.

[renanigt]

I really liked the idea. 😃

[renanigt]

With your help, I can implement this. @lucascs @Turini @garcia-jj 😃

[Turini]

I like the idea! It provides much more flexibility when using consumes.
But maybe instead of:

@Consumes(value="application/json", options={WithoutRoot.class, NoPassword.class})
public void update(User user) {...}

we could do something like this:

@Consumes(value="application/json")
@With(options={WithoutRoot.class, NoPassword.class})
public void update(User user) {...}

[lucascs]

@With is a very generic name...

what is the advantage of creating another annotation, @Turini ?

[renanigt]

What do you prefer, I try implement it with your help or you do ?

[Turini]

I know, With was just an example :) the point is the new annotation.
I think using the same annotation is kinda ugly, if we need 3 options
it will require a break line or an really big line, just like this:

@Consumes(value="application/json", options={WithoutRoot.class, NoPassword.class,
 AnotherElegantOption.class})

I'd prefer my code like this:

@Consumes(value="application/json")
@Xpto({WithoutRoot.class, NoPassword.class, AnotherElegantOption.class})

[lucascs]

It would be only one option most of time, so:

@Consumes(value="application/json", options=WithoutRoot.class)

is small enough ;)

and we could break the line this way:

@Consumes(value="application/json", 
          options={WithoutRoot.class, NoPassword.class,AnotherElegantOption.class})

[Turini]

Ok for me, there is no technical reason to create one more annotation anyway ;)

Sent from my iPhone

On 29/07/2014, at 17:55, Lucas Cavalcanti notifications@github.com wrote:

It would be only one option most of time, so:

@consumes(value="application/json", options=WithoutRoot.class)
is small enough ;)

and we could break the line this way:

@consumes(value="application/json",
options={WithoutRoot.class, NoPassword.class,AnotherElegantOption.class})
�
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[renanigt]

About the parameter of config method, the right way would be create an interface or increase the Deserializer interface ?

[lucascs]

I think it's better to use something like Serializee: https://github.com/caelum/vraptor4/blob/master/vraptor-core/src/main/java/br/com/caelum/vraptor/serialization/Serializee.java

[garcia-jj]

I agree too.
On Jul 29, 2014 6:30 PM, "Rodrigo Turini" notifications@github.com wrote:

Ok for me, there is no technical reason to create one more annotation
anyway ;)

Sent from my iPhone

On 29/07/2014, at 17:55, Lucas Cavalcanti notifications@github.com
wrote:

It would be only one option most of time, so:

@consumes(value="application/json", options=WithoutRoot.class)
is small enough ;)

and we could break the line this way:

@consumes(value="application/json",
options={WithoutRoot.class,
NoPassword.class,AnotherElegantOption.class})

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#713 (comment).

[renanigt]

I think I understood. So, does we need to create a class, maybe Deserializee like Serializee ?

[renanigt]

If do you want, I can begin the implementation and growing up the feature with your help. Or do you prefer implement it ?

What do you think ?

[renanigt]

If WithoutRoot has a configuration to force without root and WithRoot a configuration to force with root, what's the priority ?

@Consumes(value="application/json", options={WithoutRoot.class, WithRoot.class})
public void update(User user) {...}

[Turini]

I think that is better close this PR and open a new one. Ok?

Sent from my iPhone

On 29/07/2014, at 19:29, Renan Montenegro notifications@github.com wrote:

If do you want, I can begin the implementation and growing up with your help. Or do you prefer implement it ?

What do you think ?

�
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[renanigt]

Ok.

Do I begin the other or do you do ?

[lucascs]

Please begin, @renanigt

Start with a Deserializee with just setWithRoot(boolean), WithoutRoot.class and WithRoot.class setting it as false and true and the existing deserializer code to start the Deserializee with the default as it is today.

[renanigt]

@lucascs today we doesn't have Deserializee class, so I don't understood when you said "start the Deserializee with the default as it is today.".

Thanks for the support.

[renanigt]

When you said that, mean to start Deserializer with default behavior used today ?

[lucascs]

I mean that you use the existing logic to decide if there is a root or not to set the initial value of Deserializee#withRoot, and than pass it to the options.

[renanigt]

Oh, now I understand. Thanks a lot.