Hi Sundar,

Thank you for the answer. I have filed a RFE #9053373, with the minimal 
intrusion in the API which already should allow people to work with Nashorn 
more comfortably. 

/Victor
 
 --- Original message ---
 From: "Sundararajan Athijegannathan" <sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com>
 Date: 13 April 2018, 05:47:38
  


> Please note that a general Java object graph may involve circular 
> references. Without modifying JSON somehow, it is not possible to handle 
> such cases. That said, please do file a rfe with your ideas and we can 
> discuss.
> 
> -Sundar
> 
> On 11/04/18, 10:18 AM, Victor Polischuk wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I apologize if the question was already raised in the mail list, however, I 
> > find it quite strange that JSObject lacks convenient methods to convert it 
> > at least to JSON-string, if not directly to Java-POJOs?
> >
> > The Internet is full of suggestions which involve JavaScript 
> > JSON.stringify(..) as a utility. While it might work too, but I guess a lot 
> > of others are just traversing the JSObject by their own "converters".
> >
> > Therefore, if there is no design limitations/reasons why the conversion 
> > should/could not be applied within the Java representation, I am ready to 
> > volunteer on the patch.
> >
> > My reason for it are:
> > * It looks quite ugly to execute JavaScript to make something with "almost" 
> > Java object.
> > * Java has enormous number of JSON libraries already. I guess it is nice to 
> > allow people connect their favorite with minimal efforts. Potentially, if 
> > it will be required "string" phase might be excluded (not 
> > JSObject->String->POJO, but JSObject->POJO).
> > * It may simplify logging/debugging of interaction between Java and JS.
> >
> > /
> > Best Regards,
> > Victor
> 

Reply via email to