I use FlexJson for serialization, the only problem is that it generates the field names lower case while I need them to start with upper case:
class Person
{
String name;
public String getName() { return name;}
}
When serialized the field is serialized as name, while I need it to be Name.
How can I specify the output field name? Is there some attribute I can put to specify the required serialization name?
You can achieve this by using a Custom Transformer. As per Flexjson page transformer is:
Responsible for deciding how to translate the passed in object to
JSON, making the appropriate calls on the JSONContext object to output
the JSON, and/or passing the object along the transformation process.
Flexjson has provided an abstract class AbstractTransformer for this purpose; Extend and override transform(Object object) to handle the transformation by yourself.
Pasted below is the code of FieldNameTransformer which I wrote for specifying the field name s manually:
public class FieldNameTransformer extends AbstractTransformer {
private String transformedFieldName;
public FieldNameTransformer(String transformedFieldName) {
this.transformedFieldName = transformedFieldName;
}
public void transform(Object object) {
boolean setContext = false;
TypeContext typeContext = getContext().peekTypeContext();
//Write comma before starting to write field name if this
//isn't first property that is being transformed
if (!typeContext.isFirst())
getContext().writeComma();
typeContext.setFirst(false);
getContext().writeName(getTransformedFieldName());
getContext().writeQuoted(object.toString());
if (setContext) {
getContext().writeCloseObject();
}
}
/***
* TRUE tells the JSONContext that this class will be handling
* the writing of our property name by itself.
*/
#Override
public Boolean isInline() {
return Boolean.TRUE;
}
public String getTransformedFieldName() {
return this.transformedFieldName;
}
}
Following is how to use this custom transformer:
JSONSerializer serializer = new JSONSerializer().transform(new FieldNameTransformer("Name"), "name");
where original field's name is 'name' but in json ouput it will be replaced with Name.
Sample out:
{"Name":"Abdul Kareem"}
Related
I am using SnakeYaml to both load/dump data in Java. For this I have created a custom class with fields, say that the class looks something like this:
public class Person {
private String name;
private String lastName;
private String address;
public Person() {
// Do nothing
}
// Getters and setters initialized for all the fields
}
Now, what I would like is that when I write a Person object to a file with SnakeYaml I would want to have the fields in the order they are defined in the class.
e.g.
name: Patrick
lastName: Star
Age : 42
The problem is that for more advanced examples, this ordering is not achieved. Currently I am writing/dumping to a yaml file like the following:
Constructor struct = new Constructor(YamlIteratorModel.class);
Yaml yaml = new Yaml(struct);
try {
String path = "Some/File/Path/yamlfile.yaml";
FileWriter writer = new FileWriter(path);
yaml.dump(iteratorModel, writer);
} catch (IOExcepton e) {
// Do something
}
What I have also tried is creating a Representer class which extends Representer and calls the Yaml constructor in a similar manner. This one is taken from another post, and it doesn't do the job for me as it only sorts the Properties in an order I am not entirely sure of (can't find the link right now but will update if I find it again)..
public class ConfigurationModelRepresenter extends Representer {
/**
* Create object without specified dumper object
*/
public ConfigurationModelRepresenter() {
super();
}
/**
* Create object with dumper options
*
* #param options
*/
public ConfigurationModelRepresenter(DumperOptions options) {
super(options);
}
/** {#inheritDoc} */
#Override
protected Set<Property> getProperties(Class< ? extends Object> type) {
Set<Property> propertySet;
if (typeDefinitions.containsKey(type)) {
propertySet = typeDefinitions.get(type).getProperties();
} else {
propertySet = getPropertyUtils().getProperties(type);
}
List<Property> propsList = new ArrayList<>(propertySet);
Collections.sort(propsList, new BeanPropertyComparator());
return new LinkedHashSet<>(propsList);
}
class BeanPropertyComparator implements Comparator<Property> {
#Override
public int compare(Property p1, Property p2) {
// p1.getType().get
if (p1.getType().getCanonicalName().contains("util") && !p2.getType().getCanonicalName().contains("util")) {
return 1;
} else if (p2.getName().endsWith("Name") || p2.getName().equalsIgnoreCase("name")) {
return 1;
} else {
return -1;
}
}
}
}
SUMMARY: How do I maintain the ordering when dumping an object to a YAML file (using SnakeYaml) e.g. the order the fields appear defined in the custom class?
See this question, which discusses that you cannot get the line number of a declared field via reflection.
Together with the fact that reflection gives you a classes' fields in no particular order, it is obvious that it is not possible to observe the order of declared fields in a class at runtime, and it follows that you cannot order the keys in your YAML output according to their position/order in the source, because you cannot know that order.
The remedy is to transport the knowledge of the order to the runtime. Some possible ways to do this might be:
Annotate each field with a weight that defines the position of the resulting YAML key (ugly because you need annotations on the fields).
Autogenerate code by parsing the class' definition discovering the order from there, and write it to some autogenerated source file whose code is then used to order the properties in your Representer (this solution, while avoiding bloat in the original class, is very complex and elaborate).
Hard-code the field order in the Representer. That's basically the previous solution but without autogenerating. Error-prone because the Representer must be adjusted each time the class is changed.
I recommend against using any of those solutions. The YAML spec specifically says that key order must not convey content information, and if the order is important to you, you are already violating the YAML spec and should switch to a format that better serves your needs.
I have a field 'state' in a class 'Location'.
public class Location {
private String state = "TX";
// getters / setters
}
On Jackson serialization to JSON, I would like to add a field with the same value as the 'state' field, so that backward compatibility is preserved with outdated clients which expect a 'st8' field. The JSON would look like this:
{
"state": "TX",
"st8": "TX"
}
I've looked into the #JsonAppend annotation, but it seems that some strange manipulation is required for this to work, which I'm uncomfortable adding to the code:
Location bean = new Location("TX")
ObjectWriter writer = mapper.writerFor(Location.class).withAttribute("st8", "TX");
String jsonString = writer.writeValueAsString(bean);
If I'm forced to take this approach, how would I use this within the API, as it deals purely with POJO's / DTOs and serialization is all handled magically?
You can create extra getter for this field and Jackson automatically will serialise it:
class Location {
private String state = "TX";
public String getState() {
return state;
}
/**
* backward compatibility
*/
public String getSt8() {
return state;
}
public void setState(String state) {
this.state = state;
}
}
I have a java class representing a JSON using Jackson. All of the fields, with one exception, can be translated using no annotations at all. 1-to-1, simple translations (although some of them are nested POJOs).
#Data
#AllArgsConstructor
#NoArgsConstructor
public class MyPojo {
private String someString;
private AnotherPojo someOtherPojo;
//The problem child:
private Object value;
}
The field value which is an exception to this rule, can represent any JSON field matching value* where * is a wildcard of indefinite length. That means valueString or valueReference in JSON will be assigned to this field with the assertion that only one may be present.
{
"someString": "asdasdadasdsa",
"someOtherPojo": {
"someOtherProperty": "whatever"
},
"valueCodeableConcept": {
"text": "text value",
"coding": [
{
"code": "my-code"
}
]
}
}
Using a custom deserializer on the top-level class, I can scrape all of the fields from the root node (baseNode in the following example) that start with value and set the value field appropriately. That works great! However, in doing so, I now have to set every other field in this MyPojo class manually in my deserializer, and I have to put a custom copy of this deserializer on each POJO that uses a field like value*.
private Object parseValueX(JsonNode baseNode, DeserializationContext context) throws IOException {
//Find the concrete implementation referred to by the value[x] field
Set<String> concreteNames = new HashSet<>();
baseNode.fieldNames().forEachRemaining(name -> {
if (name.startsWith("value")) {
concreteNames.add(name);
}});
if (concreteNames.isEmpty()) {
return null;
}
if (concreteNames.size() > 1) {
throw JsonMappingException.from(context, "The field value[x] must have no more than one concrete " +
"implementation, ex: valueCode, valueCodeableConcept, valueReference");
}
String concreteName = concreteNames.stream().findFirst().orElseThrow(() -> new RuntimeException(""));
JsonNode jsonSource = baseNode.get(concreteName);
//...deserialize from jsonSource, solved, but not relevant to question...
}
To make this apply to any value* property on any POJO, I tried to move the deserializer to the value attribute in the POJO (whereas it's on the top-level resource now). The first flaw is that the deserializer isn't even invoked unless the JSON property exactly matches value. What I actually need is for the entire parent JSON resource to be passed to that field-specific deserializer, so that I may find the matching field and assign it -- OR -- I need to be able to have the deserializer on MyPojo only assign the one field value and allow the automatic deserialization to take care of the others. How do I do either of these?
For those curious about my motivation, I am implementing the HL7 FHIR Specification, which specifies generic attributes called value[x] (here's one example: https://www.hl7.org/fhir/extensibility.html#Extension) where [x] becomes the type of the resource.
I think a good fit for you problem is #JsonAnySetter. This method annotation tells Jackson to route unknown properties to it. the arg (in your case) is a Map containing the json tree of the unknown property. if I understand your code properly, the name of the value property contains the class name of the target Pojo. so once you have a class name, you can tell Jackson how to "deserialize" the map into an instance of the target class.
Here is an example based on the code from the question
public class MyPojo {
public String someString; // made properties into public for this example...
public AnotherPojo someOtherPojo;
public Object value;
#JsonAnySetter
public void setValue(String name, Object value) {
System.out.println(name + " " + value.getClass());
System.out.println(value);
// basic validation
if (name.startsWith("value") && value instanceof Map) {
String className = "com.company." + name.substring("value".length());
System.out.println(name + " " + value.getClass() + " " + className);
System.out.println(value);
try {
// nice of Jackson to be able to deserialize Map into Pojo :)
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
this.value = mapper.convertValue(value, Class.forName(className));
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(this.value + " " + this.value.getClass());
}
}
}
public class AnotherPojo {
public String someOtherProperty;
}
public class CodeableConcept {
public String text;
public Code[] coding;
}
public class Code {
public String code;
}
I'm new to the thrift. I need to convert my data object to a JSON string with Thrift JSON serialization.
I tried in this way.
TSerializer serializer = new TSerializer(new TSimpleJSONProtocol.Factory());
String json = serializer.toString(object_name);
In here is an error, that object_name should be in TBase. How can I resolve this ?
In here is an error, that object_name should be in TBase.
Next time, please post the exact error message (use copy+paste), this makes it easier for all of us.
How can I resolve this?
Whatever you want to serialize with Thrift, must be an descendant of Thrift's TBase class. You achieve this by writing some Thrift IDL and save it as a file (e.g. MyDataStructs.thrift):
struct Employee {
1: string name
2: string surname
3: i32 age
}
Next, you pass that file to the Thrift compiler and tell him to generate some C# code from it:
thrift -gen csharp MyDataStructs.thrift
This gives you a class derived from TBase:
public partial class Employee : TBase
{
private string _name;
private string _surname;
private int _age;
// properties
public string Name {... }
public string Surname { ... }
public int Age { ... }
// some details omitted
public void Read (TProtocol iprot)
{
// generated code for Read() method
}
public void Write(TProtocol oprot) {
// generated code for Write() method
}
public override string ToString() {
// generated code for ToString() method
}
}
This is what Thrift expects.
If below is what your are doing then it should work. Check if you are doing this. Employee is a demo call here, you have to use your actual class.
Employee object_name= new Employee();
object_name.setAge(27);
object_name.setName("Test");
TSerializer serializer = new TSerializer(new TSimpleJSONProtocol.Factory());
String json = serializer.toString(object_name);
What happens if I annotate a constructor parameter using #JsonProperty but the Json doesn't specify that property. What value does the constructor get?
How do I differentiate between a property having a null value versus a property that is not present in the JSON?
Summarizing excellent answers by Programmer Bruce and StaxMan:
Missing properties referenced by the constructor are assigned a default value as defined by Java.
You can use setter methods to differentiate between properties that are implicitly or explicitly set. Setter methods are only invoked for properties with explicit values. Setter methods can keep track of whether a property was explicitly set using a boolean flag (e.g. isValueSet).
What happens if I annotate a constructor parameter using #JsonProperty but the Json doesn't specify that property. What value does the constructor get?
For questions such as this, I like to just write a sample program and see what happens.
Following is such a sample program.
import org.codehaus.jackson.annotate.JsonProperty;
import org.codehaus.jackson.map.ObjectMapper;
public class JacksonFoo
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
// {"name":"Fred","id":42}
String jsonInput1 = "{\"name\":\"Fred\",\"id\":42}";
Bar bar1 = mapper.readValue(jsonInput1, Bar.class);
System.out.println(bar1);
// output:
// Bar: name=Fred, id=42
// {"name":"James"}
String jsonInput2 = "{\"name\":\"James\"}";
Bar bar2 = mapper.readValue(jsonInput2, Bar.class);
System.out.println(bar2);
// output:
// Bar: name=James, id=0
// {"id":7}
String jsonInput3 = "{\"id\":7}";
Bar bar3 = mapper.readValue(jsonInput3, Bar.class);
System.out.println(bar3);
// output:
// Bar: name=null, id=7
}
}
class Bar
{
private String name = "BLANK";
private int id = -1;
Bar(#JsonProperty("name") String n, #JsonProperty("id") int i)
{
name = n;
id = i;
}
#Override
public String toString()
{
return String.format("Bar: name=%s, id=%d", name, id);
}
}
The result is that the constructor is passed the default value for the data type.
How do I differentiate between a property having a null value versus a property that is not present in the JSON?
One simple approach would be to check for a default value post deserialization processing, since if the element were present in the JSON but had a null value, then the null value would be used to replace any default value given the corresponding Java field. For example:
import org.codehaus.jackson.annotate.JsonAutoDetect.Visibility;
import org.codehaus.jackson.annotate.JsonMethod;
import org.codehaus.jackson.map.ObjectMapper;
public class JacksonFooToo
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper().setVisibility(JsonMethod.FIELD, Visibility.ANY);
// {"name":null,"id":99}
String jsonInput1 = "{\"name\":null,\"id\":99}";
BarToo barToo1 = mapper.readValue(jsonInput1, BarToo.class);
System.out.println(barToo1);
// output:
// BarToo: name=null, id=99
// {"id":99}
String jsonInput2 = "{\"id\":99}";
BarToo barToo2 = mapper.readValue(jsonInput2, BarToo.class);
System.out.println(barToo2);
// output:
// BarToo: name=BLANK, id=99
// Interrogate barToo1 and barToo2 for
// the current value of the name field.
// If it's null, then it was null in the JSON.
// If it's BLANK, then it was missing in the JSON.
}
}
class BarToo
{
String name = "BLANK";
int id = -1;
#Override
public String toString()
{
return String.format("BarToo: name=%s, id=%d", name, id);
}
}
Another approach would be to implement a custom deserializer that checks for the required JSON elements. And yet another approach would be to log an enhancement request with the Jackson project at http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JACKSON
In addition to constructor behavior explained in #Programmer_Bruce's answer, one way to differentiate between null value and missing value is to define a setter: setter is only called with explicit null value.
Custom setter can then set a private boolean flag ("isValueSet" or whatever) if you want to keep track of values set.
Setters have precedence over fields, in case both field and setter exist, so you can "override" behavior this way as well.
I'm thinking of using something in the style of an Option class, where a Nothing object would tell me if there is such a value or not. Has anyone done something like this with Jackson (in Java, not Scala, et al)?
(My answer might be useful to some people finding this thread via google, even if it doesn't answer OPs question)
If you are dealing with primitive types which are omittable, and you do not want to use a setter like described in the other answers (for example if you want your field to be final), you can use box objects:
public class Foo {
private final int number;
public Foo(#JsonProperty Integer number) {
if (number == null) {
this.number = 42; // some default value
} else {
this.number = number;
}
}
}
this doesn't work if the JSON actually contains null, but it can be sufficient if you know it will only contain primitives or be absent
another option is to validate the object after deserialization either manually or via frameworks such java bean validation or, if you are using spring, the spring validation support.