JsonObject: custom merge with MergeFunction #5454
Conversation
In some cases, users may want more flexibility when merging values of JSON objects. In this case, they can provide an implementation of MergeFunction. Because we can't tell if a null result means null or skip, implementation can choose to return MergeFunction.SKIP. Signed-off-by: Thomas Segismont <[email protected]>
|
Any comment @vietj ? |
| * @see #mergeIn(JsonObject, int, MergeFunction) | ||
| */ | ||
| @FunctionalInterface | ||
| public interface MergeFunction extends BiFunction<Object, Object, Object> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer avoiding to introduce a new contract only for that purpose, BiFunction is already a functionnal interface
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we need to skip some entries then an extra predicate should be provided
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe a BiFunction<Object, Object, Optional<Object>> would be more expressive here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe a
BiFunction<Object, Object, Optional<Object>>would be more expressive here
That was my initial thought. And then, considering in most cases we won't need to skip, I tried to avoid Optional by using a signal Object.
I created MergeFunction to encapsulate that signal object.
I would be fine with a BiFunction without Optional.
|
I think we should not rush this one and see if we can provide something different that would work better |
|
where are the requirement coming from, specially the skip part the current implementation defines the behavior:
none of these cases actually deletes anything, it seems that handling the possibility of a case that would skip introduce the need for a more complex API that it might be needed. In other words using a |
|
In some cases, users may want more flexibility when merging values of JSON objects.
In this case, they can provide an implementation of
MergeFunction. Because we can't tell if anullresult meansnullor skip, implementation can choose to returnMergeFunction.SKIP.