> + */
> +package org.jclouds.openstack.nova.v2_0.domain.zonescoped;
> +
> +import com.google.common.base.Objects;
> +import java.beans.ConstructorProperties;
> +
> +/**
> + * @author Inbar Stolberg
> + */
> +public class AvailabilityZone {
> +
> + private final String name;
> + private final ZoneState zoneState;
> +
> + @ConstructorProperties({
> + "zoneName" , "zoneState"
> what is the sentence regarding the @ConstructorProperties ?
As far as I understand the responses from Everett and Ignasi, we can either:
* use the JSON field names (zoneName and zoneState, I guess) as the constructor
property names and then drop the annotation **or**
* use "nice" constructor property names (name and state) and keep the
annotation as-is to help the deserializer. Not sure if that blows up GSON
because the getters and setters would then be `getName` and `getState` rather
than `getZoneName` and `getZoneState`
I'm wondering whether there's a third option
* use the JSON field names as constructor property names but use "nice" names
for the instance variables. This would suffer from the same problem as option 2
above
The latter option would be my preferred choice, if it works, otherwise we're
left with option 1.
@nacx Any comment on that? And thanks to you and @everett-toews for explaining
- learned something new again today!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/179/files#r6997934
