[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OLINGO-317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14033755#comment-14033755
]
Michael Bolz commented on OLINGO-317:
-------------------------------------
Hi together,
with the last "commit/push" I refactored the "ContentType" class and merged the
latest master changes into the feature branch.
@All: I would merge this by end of the week into the master if there are no
objections. So take a look into and feedback is welcome ;o)
Commit "[OLINGO-317] Refactored ContentType" with ID:
(ab6fd5e2b8b2b01731c2ba771763e6b126baa28b)
Git Commit:
"https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=olingo-odata4.git;a=commit;h=ab6fd5e2b8b2b01731c2ba771763e6b126baa28b";
Git Branch:
"https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=olingo-odata4.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/Olingo-317_DeSerializerRefactoring";
Kind regards,
Michael
> JSON serialization for server use case
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: OLINGO-317
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OLINGO-317
> Project: Olingo
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: odata4-server
> Reporter: Michael Bolz
> Assignee: Michael Bolz
>
> Hi together,
> I started to take a look into the JSON Serialization for the server use case.
> Therefore I checked the "JSONEntitySerializer" in the commons package and
> found following points which could be improved:
> * The common Entity (JSONEntity and AtomEntity) with the separated Property
> and Value interfaces is complex and overloaded. Perhaps this could be
> improved by reducing (merge?) Property and Value to a single class.
> Furthermore the JSONEntity and AtomEntity could be merged into a single
> Entity.
> * The use of the Jackson ObjectMapper (in JSON case) seems not necessary.
> Perhaps the AbstractODataSerializer could use the "JSONEntitySerializer"
> similar to the "AtomSerializer" (This would also help in merging JSONEntity
> and AtomEntity by removing the @Json* annotations).
> And following points are missing but necessary for server usage:
> * Use of an existing EDM for type information (instead of setting and/or
> guessing type like in client use case)
> * Differentiation between the metadata output formats
> "json-full/-minimal/-none"
> Based on above points I think about the creation of an own JSON Serializer
> for the server.
> Kind regards,
> Michael
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
