On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:42 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 04:28:09 UTC, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:08 PM, wrote:
>> > Thanks, Tatu. Is there any existing discussion around introducing this
>> > as a
>> > feature? Missing and null properties are very diffe
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 04:28:09 UTC, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:08 PM, > wrote:
> > Thanks, Tatu. Is there any existing discussion around introducing this
> as a
> > feature? Missing and null properties are very different from a protocol
> > point of view, not hon
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:08 PM, wrote:
> Thanks, Tatu. Is there any existing discussion around introducing this as a
> feature? Missing and null properties are very different from a protocol
> point of view, not honouring the distinction seems like a big oversight.
No. I disagree on importance o
Thanks, Tatu. Is there any existing discussion around introducing this as a
feature? Missing and null properties are very different from a protocol
point of view, not honouring the distinction seems like a big oversight.
On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 03:16:42 UTC, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
>
> On Mon, Ma
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:14 PM, wrote:
> For bean setters we have
> https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/issues/1402, which AFAICT
> allows to specify different behaviour for nulls vs missing keys.
>
> I want to achieve the same but also preserve immutability (and sanity).
> What's the s
