Hi Mac, I just verified that objects with isXXX methods indeed will be interpreted as POJOs. Would you be willing to contribute a documentation update? Here are some guidelines: [1].
[1] https://flink.apache.org/contributing/contribute-documentation.html Thanks, Alexander Fedulov On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:07 AM Makhanchan Pandey < makhanchanpan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Just wanted to follow up on this again :) Thanks in advance. > > Regards, > Mac Pandey > > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:59 PM Makhanchan Pandey < > makhanchanpan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> For Flink to treat a model class as a special POJO type, these are the >> documented conditions: >> https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-release-1.13/docs/dev/serialization/types_serialization/#pojos >> >> It says the following: >> >> - >> >> All fields are either public or must be accessible through getter and >> setter functions. For a field called foo the getter and setter >> methods must be named getFoo() and setFoo(). >> >> >> We have boolean fields in our model class: >> public class Input { >> private boolean open; >> } >> >> As per this we are forced to create an accessor getOpen( ) while the >> standard Javabeans convention would be isOpen(). >> >> We ran some tests with both isOpen and getOpen and both seem to be >> recognized as POJO. >> >> Could we get confirmation that using isOpen() is valid here? And that >> this primitive boolean case is just not been documented in the above link? >> >> >> Regards, >> Mac Pandey >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
