2017-03-21 15:01 GMT+01:00 Samir Faci <[email protected]>: > I think the Record type is a bit too complex for a simple model, which is > why I prefer the Pojo. I think I've tried using a record in the past and > Jackson was serializing more data then was really needed to be returned. >
Oh, I see. Indeed, Jackson defines its serialisation rules through what's available via reflection, so type hierarchies don't really help here. On the other hand, jOOQ 3.10 will include Record.formatJSON(), so perhaps Jackson won't be necessary here? > Also, the swagger introspection seems to puke out on me when I try to use > the record data type. I can look into it a bit more if you'd like, but > mainly I think the object contains state and other attributes that aren't > really necessary when all you want to convey is "Here's some data". > Oh, interesting. Yes, I guess in that case, POJOs are the ideal solution. Thanks for sharing! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
