I want to create two different JSON documents and each contains 5 fields. I have a POJO class with 10 attributes. I want to form json1 with 5 attributes and json2 with 5 attributes using that POJO class. Is there any way to construct these objects?
Consider writing two separate wrapper classes which each expose the fields you want for the two cases, and pass the pojo as a constructor arg.
So, one of them exposes one set of properties and might look like this:
public class JsonObject1 {
private MyPojo myPojo;
public JsonObject1(MyPojo myPojo) {
this.myPojo = myPojo;
}
public void getProperty1() {
return myPojo.getProperty1();
}
......
}
and the other is similar, but exposes the other subset of properties.
Alternatively, you could add two methods (possibly to your POJO, or possibly to a service class that is exposing the POJO) that each returns a Map (eg a HashMap) where you've copied across the specific properties you want for each view, and then convert those Maps to JSON. This is less "model-driven", but might be less work overall. Thanks to #fvu for this observation!
public Map<String, Object> getPojoAsMap1() {
Map<String, Object> m = new HashMap<>();
m.put("property1", pojo.getProperty1());
....
return m;
}
It's also possible that the two different JSON representations are trying to tell you that your POJO should be split up into two POJOs - sometimes things like this are hints about how your code could be improved. But it depends on the circumstances, and it might not apply in this case.
Related
I need to serialize a nested structure of Salesforce objects as JSON but the result doesn't parse correctly.
public class Checklist_JSON {
// class to represent the structure of the checklist
// one opportunity
// one account
// one finance checklist (custom object)
// one/more integration checklists, (custom objects) each with
// one/more campaigns (custom objects)
public opportunity this_opp{get;set;}
public account this_acc{get;set;}
public finance_checklist__c this_fin{get;set;}
public map <integration_checklist__c, list<ph_campaign__c>> ints_cams{get;set;}
}
I then simply JSON.serialize(this_checklist_json);
The result can be parsed correctly for all objects except the integration_checklist__c - i.e. the keyset of the ints_cams map.
The other objects (account/oppty/etc.) each have a node 'attributes' containing the correctly formatted name/value pairs e.g.
{"attributes":{"type":"Account","url":"/services/data/v42.0/sobjects/Account/0015E00000WDO8ZQAX"},"Id":"0015E00000WDO8ZQAX",
etc.
but the integration_checklist__c doesn't have an 'attributes' node and has the fields represented like:
{"Integration_Checklist__c:{Id=a1E5E00000088lNUAQ, Name=INT-000339,
etc.
i.e. without quote marks around "ID":"a1E5E00000088lNUAQ"
Any ideas? Thanks in advance
Well... and what would you imagine the result should be? How would you represent "map whose keys are also objects" in a simple javascript object (because your map keys would be translated to field names during serialisation)?
Pick a primitive as the map key (Id, Decimal, String) or worst case - serialise the keys to strings, build new Map> and serialise that?
SF tries here, it calls "toString()" on your sobjects used keys, that's why you see 1 giant string. It looks identical to results of System.debug() call, doesn't it?
Thank you #eyescream for taking the time to respond.
The fundamental problem was that I shouldn't have been trying to represent the parent-child relationship as a map.
I've re-written based on represnting that relationship as a class:
public class Checklist_JSON {
// class to represent the structure of the checklist
// one opportunity
// one account
// one finance checklist
// one/more integration checklists, each with
// one/more campaigns
public opportunity this_opp{get;set;}
public account this_acc{get;set;}
public finance_checklist__c this_fin{get;set;}
public list<int_cams> these_ints_cams {get;set;}
}
public class int_cams {
//class to represent parent-children relationship int-list<cams>
public integration_checklist__c this_int {get;set;}
public list <ph_campaign__c> these_cams {get;set;}
}
serializing the result now produces my intended json output.
This is a simplified version of the problem i am solving but conceptually equivalent.
This project is using castle windsor and I am trying to keep all factories in the container.
I have a single object that represents data parsed from a text file. After parsing this file I need to write a new text file with 2 line based on data in the original object.
lets say the text file is
Some Person, Work Phone, Mobil Phone
this gets parsed into
public class Person
{
public string Name{get;set;}
public stirng WorkPhone {get;set;}
public stirng MobilPhone {get;set;}
}
Now this is a simplified example so keep that in mind please. The next step is to creat new object instances that represent each line we will write to the text file
public interface IFileEntry
{
string Name{get;set;}
string Number{get;set;}
}
public class PersonWorkPhoneEntry : IFileEntry
{
public string Name {get;set;}
public string Number{get;set;}
public override ToString(){....}
}
public class PersonMobilPhoneEntry: IFileEntry
{
public string Name{get;set;}
public string Number{get;set;}
public override ToString(){....}
}
so being that we are using Castle for this lets make a factory
public interface IFileEntryFactory
{
IFileEntry Create(string entryType, stirng Name, string Number
}
I have created my own implementation for the DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector and install that for this factory only.
public class FileEntryComponentSelector : DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector
{
protected override string GetComponentName(System.Reflection.MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
if (method.Name == "Create" && arguments.length == 3)
{
return (string)arguments[0];
}
return base.GetComponentName(method, arguments);
}
}
This works,
var workEntry = _factory.Create("PersonWorkPhoneEntry", person.Name, person.WorkPhone)
var mobilEntry = _factory.Create("PersonMobilPhoneEntry", person.Name, person.WorkPhone)
//then write the tostring to a text file
Sorry for the long setup but i think its needed. What I am trying to do Is
public interface IFileEntryFactory
{
IFileEntry Create(string entryType, stirng Name, string Number
IFileEntry[] Create(Person person)
}
var entries = _factory.Create(person);
foreach(var e in entries)
///write to text file.
I have been digging all over for a solution like this with no results.
What seems to be a possible solution taking the example shown here (Castle Windsor Typed Factory Facility with generics)
Im currently working on implementing something like this now, not sure if this is the right way to solve this problem.
The questions:
are there any other ways to have the factory return the array of
needed objects
what is the best practice for solving something like
this
any examples and reading for advanced factories
It is possible to make a Factory return to you an array of objects which are already registered in the container. Here is an example
container.Register(Component.For<IMyStuffProvider>().AsFactory()) // registration
public interface IStuffProvider
{
IEnumerable<IMyStuff> GetAllStuff();
void Release(IMyStuff stuff);
}
This code makes possible that every registered implementation of IMyStuff gets returned by the factory.
But I think that your problem is different : you are using the factory for the wrong purpose. TypedFactory is to get instances of objects that are already registered in the container during app start and not to manipulate files. Their purpose is to solve problems regarding dependencies.
If you are parsing a csv/txt into objects and then writing some of the rows back into another csv/txt you have to make
IFileEntryManager (with an implementation) with a methods like DeserializeFileToObjects, WriteObjectsToFile, etc.
IFileEntryManagerFactory to create and return IFileEntryManager. ( Castle typed factory here :) )
Now inject your IFileEntryManagerFactory in your ctor of the class that needs to serialize/deserialize text files and and use it to get your FileEntryManager which in turn will act upon your text files.
If you have different objects like Person, Company, Employee... etc. and you want to handle them with generic manipulator - it is ok. The best way is to implement a Generic Repository. Lets say ICsvRepository<T>. Just search for 'Generic Rpository in c#' and ignore that fact that most of the implementation examples are with EntityFramework as a persistence store. Behind the interface you can make it read/write to csv rather than to DB.
Lets generalize it. If you have to deal with resources - files, sql, blobs, tables, message bus or whatever resource persistent/non persistent which comes in or goes out of your application you have to manipulate it through an abstraction IMyResourceManager with its corresponding manipulation methods. If you have several implementations of IMyResourceManager and you want to decide during runtime which implementation you want then you have to make IMyResourceManagerFactory with a component selector or factory method and place your differentiation logic there.
That is why I think you do not need a TypedFactory for text file read/write but a pure ITextFileManipulator which you have to register in the container and get it through constructor. You may need a typed factory if you go for ICsvRepository<T> where T is your Person class. Inside the implementation of ICsvRepository<T> you will need ICsvFileManipulator.
I need to add new property to an object, when serializing to JSON. The value for the property is calculated on runtime and does not exist in the object. Also the same object can be used for creation of different JSON with different set ot fields (kind of having a base class with subclasses, but I don't want to create ones just for JSON generation).
What is the best way of doing that, which doesn't involve creation of custom serializer class, which will take care of serializing of whole set of object's fields? Or may be it is possible to inherit some "basic" serializer, and simply take it's output and add new field to it somehow?
I learned about mixins, and looks like it is possible to rename/hide some fields, however it seems not be possible to add an extra one.
Can you not just add a method in value class? Note that it does not have to be either public, or use getter naming convention; you could do something like:
public class MyStuff {
// ... the usual fields, getters and/or setters
#JsonProperty("sum") // or whatever name you need in JSON
private int calculateSumForJSON() {
return 42; // calculate somehow
}
}
Otherwise you could convert POJO into JSON Tree value:
JsonNode tree = mapper.valueToTree(value);
and then modify it by adding properties etc.
2021 calling...
Simplest way I found to do this is #JsonUnwrapped:
public class Envelope<T> {
#JsonUnwrapped // content's fields are promoted alongside the envelope's
public T content;
// Transmission specific fields
public String url;
public long timestamp;
}
This works (bi-directionally) so long as Envelope's fieldnames do not clash with those of content. Also has a nice feature of keeping the transmission properties at the end of the serialised JSON.
One option is to add a field for this property and set it on the object before writing to JSON. A second option, if the property can be computed from other object properties you could just add a getter for it, for example:
public String getFullName() {
return getFirstName() + " " + getLastName();
}
And even though there's no matching field Jackson will automatically call this getter while writing the JSON and it will appear as fullName in the JSON output. If that won't work a third option is to convert the object to a map and then manipulate it however you need:
ObjectMapper mapper //.....
MyObject o //.....
long specialValue //.....
Map<String, Object> map = mapper.convertValue(o, new TypeReference<Map<String, Object>>() { });
map.put("specialValue", specialValue);
You're question didn't mention unmarshalling but if you need to do that as well then the first option would work fine but the second two would need some tweaking.
And as for writing different fields of the same object it sounds like a job for #JsonView
I'm aware that there are multiple way to tell JacksonJson to ignore
properties during rendering but all of them are static. (JasonIgnore, MixIn classes, ..).
This is my scenario. A domain object can implement a interface called FilteredDomain to
allow it to be dynamically filtered. The interface is simple and only exposes one method
"getIgnoreProperties". (A list of properties to ignore).
I then register a Custom Serializer that binds to the FilteredDomain object. The
code looks something like:
private class FilteredDomainSerializer extends JsonSerializer<FilteredDomain> {
public void serialize(FilteredDomain arg, JsonGenerator jgen,
SerializerProvider provder) throws IOException,
JsonProcessingException {
final BeanWrapper wrapper = PropertyAccessorFactory.forBeanPropertyAccess(arg);
for (PropertyDescriptor pd : wrapper.getPropertyDescriptors()) {
final String name = pd.getName();
if (arg.getIgnoreProperties().containsKey(name))
continue;
final Object value = wrapper.getPropertyValue(name);
jgen.writeObjectField(name, value);
}
}
}
First, I really dislike that I need to use the Spring Bean wrapper to get a list of all properties and iterate through them (There must be a way to do this is jackson json).
Second, The code still dosen't work. I get the error:
org.codehaus.jackson.JsonGenerationException: Can not write a field name, expecting a value
at org.codehaus.jackson.impl.JsonGeneratorBase._reportError(JsonGeneratorBase.java:480)
at org.codehaus.jackson.impl.Utf8Generator.writeFieldName(Utf8Generator.java:270)
at org.codehaus.jackson.JsonGenerator.writeObjectField(JsonGenerator.java:1088)
at com.rootmusic.util.SystemJsonObjectMapper$ValueObjectSerializer.serialize(SystemJsonObjectMapper.java:65)
at com.rootmusic.util.SystemJsonObjectMapper$ValueObjectSerializer.serialize(SystemJsonObjectMapper.java:1)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.ser.ContainerSerializers$IndexedListSerializer.serializeContents(ContainerSerializers.java:304)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.ser.ContainerSerializers$IndexedListSerializer.serializeContents(ContainerSerializers.java:254)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.ser.ContainerSerializers$AsArraySerializer.serialize(ContainerSerializers.java:142)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.ser.MapSerializer.serializeFields(MapSerializer.java:287)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.ser.MapSerializer.serialize(MapSerializer.java:212)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.ser.MapSerializer.serialize(MapSerializer.java:23)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.ser.StdSerializerProvider._serializeValue(StdSerializerProvider.java:606)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.ser.StdSerializerProvider.serializeValue(StdSerializerProvider.java:280)
The error comes from the fact that you are not writing START_OBJECT / END_OBJECT around field-name/value pairs, so that should be easy to fix.
As to more dynamic filtering, you could read this blog entry which includes standard methods. #JsonView works if you have sets of static definitions (one of which you can dynamically select on per-serialization basis), but if you want yet more dynamic system, #JsonFilter is the way to go.
Alternatively, another relatively simple way would be to first "convert" your POJO into a Map:
Map props = objectMapper.convertValue(pojo, Map.class);
(which is similar to serializing it as JSON, except that result is a Map which would render as JSON)
and then selectively trim Map, and serialize that as JSON. Or, if you prefer, you can use JsonNode ("tree model") as the intermediate thing to modify and then serialize.
I have successfully set up a quick test of creating a "REST-like" service that returns an object serialized to JSON, and that was quite easy and quick (based on this article).
But while returning JSON-ified objects was easy as peach, I have yet to see any examples dealing with input parameters that are not primitives. How can I pass in a complex object as an argument? I am using Apache CXF, but examples using other frameworks like Jackson are welcome too :)
Client side would probably be something like building a javascript object, pass it into JSON.stringify(complexObj), and pass that string as one of the parameters.
The service would probably look something like this
#Service("myService")
class RestService {
#GET
#Produces("application/json")
#Path("/fooBar")
public Result fooBar(#QueryParam("foo") double foo, #QueryParam("bar") double bar,
#QueryParam("object") MyComplex object) throws WebServiceException {
...
}
}
Sending serialized objects as parameters would probably quickly touch the 2KB URL-limit imposed by Internet Explorer. Would you recommend using POST in these cases, and would I need to change much in the function definitions?
After digging a bit I quickly found out there are basically two options:
Option 1
You pass a "wrapper object" containing all the other parameters to the service. You might need to annotate this wrapper class with JAXB annotations like #XmlRootElement in order for this to work with the Jettison based provider, but if you use Jackson in stead there is no need. Just set the content type to the right type and the right message body reader will be invoked.
This will only work for POST type services of course (AFAIK).
Example
This is just an example of turning the service mentioned in the original question into one using a wrapper object.
#Service("myService")
class RestService {
#POST
#Produces("application/json")
#Path("/fooBar")
public Result fooBar(
/**
* Using "" will inject all form params directly into a ParamsWrapper
* #see http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-basics.html
*/
#FormParam("") FooBarParamsWrapper wrapper
) throws WebServiceException {
doSomething(wrapper.foo);
}
}
class ParamsWrapper {
double foo, bar;
MyComplexObject object;
}
Option 2
You can provide some special string format that you pack your objects into and then implement either a constructor taking a string, a static valueOf(String s) or a static fromString(String s) in the class that will take this string and create an object from it. Or quite similar, create a ParameterHandler that does exactly the same.
AFAIK, only the second version will allow you to call your services from a browser using JSONP (since JSONP is a trick restricted to GET). I chose this route to be able to pass arrays of complex objects in the URI.
As an example of how this works, take the following domain class and service
Example
#GET
#Path("myService")
public void myService(#QueryParam("a") MyClass [] myVals) {
//do something
}
class MyClass {
public int foo;
public int bar;
/** Deserializes an Object of class MyClass from its JSON representation */
public static MyClass fromString(String jsonRepresentation) {
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper(); //Jackson's JSON marshaller
MyClass o= null;
try {
o = mapper.readValue(jsonRepresentation, MyClass.class );
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new WebApplicationException()
}
return o;
}
}
A URI http://my-server.com/myService?a={"foo":1, "bar":2}&a={"foo":100, "bar":200} would in this case be deserialized into an array composed of two MyClass objects.
2019 comment:
Seeing that this answer still gets some hits in 2019, I feel I should comment. In hindsight, I would not recomment option 2, as going through these steps just to be able to be able to do GET calls adds complexity that's probably not worth it. If your service takes such complex input, you will probably not be able to utilize client side caching anyway, due to the number of permutations of your input. I'd just go for configuring proper Cross-Origin-Sharing (CORS) headers on the server and POST the input. Then focus on caching whatever you can on the server.
The accepted answer is missing #BeanParam. See
https://docs.jboss.org/resteasy/docs/3.0-rc-1/javadocs/javax/ws/rs/BeanParam.html
for further details. It allows you to define query params inside a wrapper object.
E.g.
public class TestPOJO {
#QueryParam("someQueryParam")
private boolean someQueryParam;
public boolean isSomeQueryParam() {
return someQueryParam;
}
public boolean setSomeQueryParam(boolean value) {
this.someQueryParam = value;
}
}
... // inside the Resource class
#GET
#Path("test")
public Response getTest(#BeanParam TestPOJO testPOJO) {
...
}
the best and simplest solution is to send your object as a json string and in server side implement a method which will decode that json and map to the specified object as per your need.. and yes it`s better to use POST.