[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-671?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14484190#comment-14484190
]
Nick Dimiduk commented on CALCITE-671:
--------------------------------------
(type, value) pairs makes sense? How to we represent them such that Jackson can
automagically encode them correctly when "type erasure" is happening on Object
references? In my case here, I'll still end up with a
(AvaticaParameter<VARBINARY>, {"bytes", "blahblah"}) instead of
(AvaticaParameter<VARBINARY>, ByteString). Strongly typed container classes (or
an enum) would do the trick, but that leads us into "all possible combinations
of" territory. Maybe an AvaticaParameterValue class that's effectively a union
of typed fields, only one of which has a value.
> ByteString does not deserialize properly as a FetchRequest parameterValue
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-671
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-671
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Nick Dimiduk
> Assignee: Julian Hyde
> Attachments: 671.patch
>
>
> I think the reason here is that FetchRequest#parameterValues is declared as a
> List<Object>, which Jackson interprets as a request to serialize as plain
> objects (see [Deserializing, other|http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonFAQ]).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
