Replies: 1 comment 4 replies
-
Because JSON has strings and lists. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Not exactly "lists". JSON has "arrays", which is sort of the point because that makes |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Well, we disagree. It's one of the principles the library was founded on rather than continuing to maintain Gson which does many of the things you desire. I would suggest you try using Gson instead. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Well, if that is truly the "principle", then Set, Map, and Rfc3339DateJsonAdapter should be removed from the main-line distribution, and may be put into some different module. Thanks for the Gson suggestion. Currently using it, but unfortunately Gson/Jackson doesn't have "reasonable defaults" quite right for our use, either; so looking for other places and got to know Moshi.... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It's almost as if everyone has a different set of things they want from the library and it's our job to both pick ones which are reasonable for most while also offering customization to still do the things you want. The only library that will work for 100% of your uses cases with 0 configuration is the one you write yourself. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
First off, if that is true, why is
java.lang.Stringorjava.util.Listsupported as built-in types in the first place?I guess the point to be made here is that "reasonable defaults" is a better way to go. i.e. the default built-in types need to be expanded, such that it should just "work" for most common cases:
java.util.Datejava.lang.Throwablejava.lang.CharSequenceThe user should not have to "configure" in order to make the most basic things work. The current list of built-in adapters is too restricted to be reasonable.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions