John, PR submitted: https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/457 <https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/457>
James > On Nov 4, 2016, at 12:30 PM, John Wagenleitner <john.wagenleit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think there is consensus and a PR would be great. > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:23 AM, James Kleeh <james.kl...@gmail.com > <mailto:james.kl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Do we have any consensus on this? Should I submit a PR with the change? > > > On Oct 28, 2016, at 6:51 AM, Graeme Rocher <graeme.roc...@gmail.com > > <mailto:graeme.roc...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > one thing to note. I would assume if we allow JsonOutput.unescaped it > > would the convert method would have to return Object? Currently the > > JsonUnescaped type doesn't implement CharSequence > > > > If that is the case it may also be interesting to support return types > > of Writable since. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Graeme Rocher <graeme.roc...@gmail.com > > <mailto:graeme.roc...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Yeah I agree JsonOutput.unescaped allows the same flexibility without > >> compromising the most common use case. > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:32 PM, John Wagenleitner > >> <john.wagenleit...@gmail.com <mailto:john.wagenleit...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:07 PM, James Kleeh <james.kl...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:james.kl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Currently if one were to register a converter with options like so: > >>>> > >>>> JsonGenerator.Options options = new JsonGenerator.Options() > >>>> options.addConverter(MyCustomType) { MyCustomType mct -> > >>>> mct.name <http://mct.name/> > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Assuming “mct.name <http://mct.name/>” returns a string, it will be > >>>> output without quotes > >>>> because of: > >>>> > >>>> Converter converter = findConverter(objectClass); > >>>> if (converter != null) { > >>>> writeRaw(converter.convert(object, key), buffer); > >>>> return; > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> I’d be curious to hear what the use case is for outputting the data as > >>>> raw. I think the percentage of users that would prefer to have their data > >>>> further processed by that method would vastly outnumber the ones that do > >>>> not. > >>>> > >>>> I think something like this would be a better solution: > >>>> > >>>> Converter converter = findConverter(objectClass); > >>>> if (converter != null) { > >>>> object = converter.convert(object, key); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I had aimed for making it as flexible as possible and purposefully had it > >>> not participate in further processing to avoid surprises and be able to > >>> output JSON that otherwise wouldn't be possible due to the way the > >>> generator > >>> was already configured (nulls or being able to write out a number such as > >>> 9.3e7). > >>> > >>> I like your suggestion and think the flexibility could still be > >>> accomplished > >>> using JsonOutput.unescaped; and since 2.5 isn't out yet there's still time > >>> to refine how it works. > >>> > >>> I also would like to hear what others think. > >>> > >>> John > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Graeme Rocher > > > > > > > > -- > > Graeme Rocher > >
