@Json annotation to override the field name about moshi HOT 15 CLOSED

You're usually following Java's conventions in other areas of your code, so for an other reader (or yourself after a few months not looking at the code), it's extremely confusing to see two conventions used inside one codebase. Hence the unique convention.

from moshi.

I have to agree with @mehdibaha here. I'll add that forcing a 1:1 naming relationship might work great when you're controlling both the API and the Client. However, my company routinely integrates with multiple third parities in the same project. It seems like a silly constraint to be forced to use whatever arbitrary naming policy the third party is using. And two different conventions can turn to 10 very quickly.

And @swankjesse: Strictly following Java's conventions may be unnecessary in your circumstance, but in mine, my engineering department uses a well defined set of coding standards. And the argument that we'd have to change them in some circumstances because our favorite resource for quality libraries (that's you guys) says it's unnecessary isn't going to cut it.

Sure, one could argue that there are myriad libraries for JSON serialization/deserialization, and that we should go with one of those. Sure. But there's a reason we look to you guys. And that's the same reason others will keep piping in to request this feature. Just a prediction.

from moshi.

How about making this equivalent to Gson @JsonAdapter annotation?
The developer should be able to specify arbitrary type adapter for a field and class.

from moshi.

Moshi looks up type adapters by type + annotation. So you can do @UnixEpoch long authenticatedAt and register the corresponding adapter in Moshi. I'm slightly reluctant to support @JsonAdapter, but I can be convinced!

from moshi.

The biggest benefit of JsonAdapter (from my perspective) is that it allows me to specify the custom type adapter for my class without requiring the Gson instance to register it.

In Moshi, how do you propose to automatically register a custom type adapter for a type?

from moshi.

The closest we'll come to automatic JSON binding is this: #29

from moshi.

that works, and also takes care of subclasses

from moshi.

@JsonName? Not that I don't like @Json or anything.

from moshi.

Would it be dual-purpose? @Json(value="foo", adapter=FooJsonAdapter.class) ?

from moshi.

can you please explain why you don't want a general field name policy support?
since most of the json is generated from python/ruby field naming conventions, and the policy itself is just a String -> String function

does this have to do to the efficient okio-based nature of moshi? (but then again @Json will be supported somehow)

from moshi.

We don't support field naming policy because it breaks grep. Programming becomes a lot easier once you commit to not breaking grep.

(If you see a field like shipping_address in your JSON, you can search for that in your code and find it.)

from moshi.

Hi,
I'm sorry but I need to ask this question (since it's the only reason why I haven't adopted moshi yet) :
Who need to grep his code for a particular field name only found (normally) in the server code.

When you arrive at the client code, all the field naming conventions change, and you can start grepping for ShippingAdress, so I don't see how that's a reason for you not implementing yet policy-based name mangling.

from moshi.

@mehdibaha strictly following Java's conventions is unnecessary. You make the whole thing simpler by just using the same names on client and server.

from moshi.

#68

from moshi.

I think you've made the right choice. Thanks.

from moshi.