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
> >
>

Reply via email to