On 2009-12-07 23.30, philippe van dyck wrote:
No time for this, sorry.
I repatched SerializableType and everything work again.
For the record, (and my solution is far from perfect) in ToJSON in do:
<snip>
Alright, I have now patched SerializableType to do something similar,
except instead of adding another layer to the object I just add "_type"
as an extra field.
The ValueTypeSerializationTest has been updated with extra cases that
tests this. Specifically:
Property<Foo> foo();
Property<FooValue> fooValue();
Property<Foo> customFoo();
Property<FooValue> customFooValue();
---
In the first case the serialization will be done by SerializableType,
and _type will be included. In the second case serialization is done by
ValueCompositeType (since the property type is a ValueComposite), and no
_type is included. In the third case serialization is done by
SerializableType and _type is included. In the fourth case serialization
is done by ValueCompositeType and _type is included. The only way to not
get _type to be included is hence to have a ValueComposite type as the
type of the property, and let the instance be of that type. All other
cases will include _type explicitly.
This should cover serialization quite well. The main issue I can see now
is how we should handle migration, i.e. what if the types change name?
We might want to be able to register such type changes somehow.
/Rickard
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
