Where is it filed? Curious. We use Jackson and annotations to avoid circular references.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM, Victor Polischuk <vict...@ukr.net> wrote: > 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.athijegannathan@ > 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 > > >
