Thank you very much for the quick reply. I've spent a lot of "quality time" on this recently :).
My impression is that support for the builder pattern is somewhat of a 2nd class citizen? Besides this issue I've noticed a couple of other things while trying to work around it by adding my own custom deserializer(s): - In my deserialize() method I can't access the parent object with i.e. getParserContext().getParent() - My parameterized builder constructor seems to be called before all of the properties have been parsed, for example if my document has properties A, B, C, FOO, D, E, F where FOO represents my custom type, the constructor is called with values for A, B and C but nulls for D, E, and F, it's as if it calls the constructor before completing the parsing at the parent level. I suspect these issues are related and that maybe deserializing with the builder pattern is just sequential and doesn't fully handle all of the nuances of nested documents etc. This is making me think that implementing this in Jackson is too much to take on ATM for my little project. Randy On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, Tatu Saloranta wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:26 PM Randy Tidd <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > I have this case on my current project, we are using the builder pattern > and have an embedded generic object that requires an external type id. > Based on this code this appears to not be supported and based on true > comment this has been an issue since 2012. > > > > > https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/blob/7765422a77991995cd4d11b5ebb31ad96dc69bdd/src/main/java/com/fasterxml/jackson/databind/deser/BuilderBasedDeserializer.java#L818 > > > > > My question is why this is not supported as it seems to be a pretty > straightforward and useful case, and if there is any known workaround or > has anyone implemented this > > themselves? I was going to take a shot at it if there are enough hooks > to use a custom deserializer. > > It would definitely be great to get a PR for enabling it (along with > simple unit test to show functioning), if that turns out doable. > As the author I have a feeling there at least was some fundamental > challenge to solve that seemed big enough to scare me... but what do I > know. :-) > (I do not recall details but my guess is that this is due to > implementation of external-property-based (de)serialization being > rather hairy AND due to builder handling also being somewhat... > involved. Rendering combination thereof bit... challenging) > > -+ Tatu +- > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jackson-user" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jackson-user/9bd09736-9117-4a13-a057-147f318fa039%40googlegroups.com.
