-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for java.beans.Transient #857
Comments
First of all, thank you for reporting this. I was not aware of this addition. The technical answer is that sub-classing Check can not be added in |
Actually I did not knew about jackson-datatype-jdk7, glad I ear about it before reporting features it adds :) |
No problem, right now it's quite minimal. But there is also |
Discussions on-going to make Jackson 2.7 require Java 7 / JDK 1.7. If so, could be added in core |
Ok: Jackson 2.7 will require Java 7, so we can actually use this marker annotation. One potential concern I have is that although it would be possible to simply consider this an alias of On the other hand, reading through the Javadocs, annotation can only be defined for methods, and it looks like intent is to indeed consider this ignoral marker. So I'll go ahead and implement it that way. |
Note: for what it worth that's what I did on my side for now so at least me will be happy :) |
Ok good, so at least this will do what some of the users are using it for. |
java.beans.Transient is a new Java bean annotation introduced in Java 7 which has pretty much the same meaning as transient keyword except that you can put it on methods to ignore some getters for example.
I guess the issue is that Jackson follow Java bean but does not actually use java.beans.Introspector and impossible to support this annotation before Jackson move to Java 7 (which is not the case from what I understood from http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonDownload).
Any idea what would be the cleanest to support that in the meantime ? I tough about setting a custom visibility checker but maybe there is a better way.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: