Details
-
Type:
Improvement
-
Status:
Closed
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Affects Version/s: None
-
Fix Version/s: 1.2.2
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:None
-
JDK version and platform:1.5
Description
Hello,
I was trying to map an XML file with multiple collections that must mapped as implicit collections.
I would like to map them using Java 5 annotations, but at the class level I can use a single @XStreamImplicitCollection having a single String parameter for the collection. Don't know if I missed something, or if I'm using the wrong approach. Please let me know if I'm in the latter case.
At present, for having things working, I modified XStreamImplicitCollection.java and Annotation.java sources for having an array of parameters. So I can map multiple collection writing the following code:
@XStreamAlias("Widget")
@XStreamImplicitCollection(
)
public class Widget {
private String Name;
private List<Property> properties = new ArrayList<Property>();
private List<Container> containers = new ArrayList<Container>();
}
I attached the modified sources and the diff file. Hope this can help.
Activity
Hi Joerg,
yes, I know it's breaking compatibility. It was just an hack for pressure.
An field annotation could be a better solution. Have you an estimate of when that feature could be availble in XStream? Let me know if I could help.
Lucio
Lucio Benfante
added a comment - Hi Joerg,
yes, I know it's breaking compatibility. It was just an hack for pressure.
An field annotation could be a better solution. Have you an estimate of when that feature could be availble in XStream? Let me know if I could help.
Lucio Hi,
I just relized that my patch is in fact backward compatible.
If you have a single implicit collection in you class, you can still write:
@XStreamImplicitCollection("properties")...
Of course a field annotation could still be better...
Lucio
Lucio Benfante
added a comment - Hi,
I just relized that my patch is in fact backward compatible.
If you have a single implicit collection in you class, you can still write:
@XStreamImplicitCollection("properties")...
Of course a field annotation could still be better...
Lucio Hehehe, you simply revealed my lack of JDK 5 knowledge 
Jörg Schaible
added a comment - Hehehe, you simply revealed my lack of JDK 5 knowledge Hello,
as discussed in the dev mailing-list, a field annotation is a better approach for defining an implicit collection.
I implemented it for my purposes. Attached you'll find:
- XStreamImplicit.java : source of the new field level annotation
- ImplicitCollectionTest.java : some tests of the new annotation
- Annotations.java : modified source of the annotation configurator
- annotations.diff : diff file between the original Annotations.java and my modifed file.
Hope this help, and could be integrated in XStream.
Lucio
Lucio Benfante
added a comment - Hello,
as discussed in the dev mailing-list, a field annotation is a better approach for defining an implicit collection.
I implemented it for my purposes. Attached you'll find:
XStreamImplicit.java : source of the new field level annotation
ImplicitCollectionTest.java : some tests of the new annotation
Annotations.java : modified source of the annotation configurator
annotations.diff : diff file between the original Annotations.java and my modifed file.
Hope this help, and could be integrated in XStream.
Lucio Implementation and tests of the @XStreamImplicit field annotation.
Lucio Benfante
added a comment - Implementation and tests of the @XStreamImplicit field annotation. Diff file of Annotations.java after the introduction of the @XStreamImplicit field annotation
Lucio Benfante
added a comment - Diff file of Annotations.java after the introduction of the @XStreamImplicit field annotation Hi Lucio,
thanks a lot for the patch and the test cases. I've applied it to the subversion repository. You might build a SNAPSHOT version of XStream yourself.
- Jörg
Jörg Schaible
added a comment - Hi Lucio,
thanks a lot for the patch and the test cases. I've applied it to the subversion repository. You might build a SNAPSHOT version of XStream yourself.
Jörg
Hi Lucio,
the problem with this modification is, that it breaks backward compatibility. Nevertheless, we were discussing internally about this annotation anyway, since we have the impression, it should be assigned to a field and not to a class.
... we'll see ...