activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martyn Taylor <mtay...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Object Serialisation Support
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2017 12:51:01 GMT
I get the use case for using JSON/XML, particularly for cross language
communication.

One way users get around this problem right now is just to serialize
to/from XML/JSON at the client application level and just use JMS
TextMessages to send the data. I guess the idea here to remove that
complexity from the client application and into the client via these
pluggable serializer objects?  Removing the serizliation logic out of code
and into configuration.

Providing I've understood this properly, it seems like a good idea to me.
 so +1.


On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Michael André Pearce <
michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:

> I think i might be getting the problem, use case you want to go for, which
> is to possible serialise to JSON or XML, because they're supported well in
> other languages like c++, which won't read a java serialised object, and
> say for XML you generate objects via an XSD which by default aren't
> serialisable, so you cannot simply add Serializable to the object, as its
> generated at build.
>
> Is this the problem we need to solve? If so:
>
> To get around this normally the tools that generate objects for
> serialisation from schema such as XSD do support a way to toggle or change
> the generation slightly for some common use cases.
>
> In case of XSD, where using jaxb it would be to add something like the
> below to jaxb global bindings:
>
> <xs:annotation>
> <xs:appinfo>
> <jaxb:globalBindings generateIsSetMethod="true">
> <xjc:serializable uid="12343"/>
> </jaxb:globalBindings>
> </xs:appinfo>
> </xs:annotation>
>
> like wise if you are generating POJO's from a jsonschema using for say the
> tool jsonschema2pojo  there is a toggle in the maven plugin serializable
> which you can switch to true.
>
> Obviously if you hand crank your DTO Pojo's then it's a case of simply add
> implement  Serializable to the class.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 1 Jun 2017, at 06:57, Michael André Pearce <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > we could but then it wouldn't work via jms api. Typically if using jms
> the only custom or specific broker object is the connection factory the
> rest you code to Jms.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 1 Jun 2017, at 04:10, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:47 PM Michael André Pearce <
> >> michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jms api dictates class set in object message to be serializable.
> >>
> >>
> >> We could make an extension. It could be an extra message this actually.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 31 May 2017, at 22:37, Timothy Nodine <timgnodine@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Should the interface require the underlying class to be Serializable?
> >>> One use case might be to provide serialization to classes that aren't
> >>> natively serializable.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael André Pearce wrote:
> >>>>> To help discussion,
> >>>>> A very very basic implementation just to simulate the idea.
> >>> https://github.com/michaelandrepearce/activemq-artemis/tree/
> CustomSerialisation
> >>> <
> >>> https://github.com/michaelandrepearce/activemq-artemis/tree/
> CustomSerialisation
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> n.b. doesn’t fully compile is just pseudo impl, nor doesn’t
include
> >>> bits as discussed below like map/change type to a byte message for
> >>> compatibility, nor media type idea.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>> Mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message