You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Interface JsonSerializable is something that value classes may implement to define custom serialization as part of the value class itself. Due to historical reasons there is the "Json" prefix; but since this type and usage is format-agnostic it really should not be used.
For Jackson 3.0 we have some option; 2 leading ones being
JacksonSerializable (or perhaps JacksonSerialiation) -- clearly indicates this is a Jackson-specific thing
While initially former seemed preferable for consistency, my current thinking is that latter is better since this type would be mostly used for value types that otherwise do not refer to Jackson types (except for methods defined by the interface). For code readability it seems more likely that the reference to Jackson is good in indicating specific reason for the interface in that context, and consistency with types not of immediate interest there is off less importance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
cowtowncoder
added
to-evaluate
Issue that has been received but not yet evaluated
3.x
Issues to be only tackled for Jackson 3.x, not 2.x
and removed
to-evaluate
Issue that has been received but not yet evaluated
labels
Feb 8, 2021
(note: part of https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-future-ideas/wiki/JSTEP-6)
Interface
JsonSerializable
is something that value classes may implement to define custom serialization as part of the value class itself. Due to historical reasons there is the "Json" prefix; but since this type and usage is format-agnostic it really should not be used.For Jackson 3.0 we have some option; 2 leading ones being
ValueSerializable
(or maybeSerializableValue
or evenValueSerialization
) -- would be consistent with renaming in RenameJsonDeserializer
/JsonSerializer
asValueDeserializer
/ValueSerializer
in 3.0 #3044.JacksonSerializable
(or perhapsJacksonSerialiation
) -- clearly indicates this is a Jackson-specific thingWhile initially former seemed preferable for consistency, my current thinking is that latter is better since this type would be mostly used for value types that otherwise do not refer to Jackson types (except for methods defined by the interface). For code readability it seems more likely that the reference to Jackson is good in indicating specific reason for the interface in that context, and consistency with types not of immediate interest there is off less importance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: