My situation asks for a bit more complex serialisation. I have a class Available
(this is a very simplified snippet):
public class Available<T> {
private T value;
private boolean available;
...
}
So a POJO
class Tmp {
private Available<Integer> myInt = Available.of(123);
private Available<Integer> otherInt = Available.clean();
...
}
would normally result in
{"myInt":{available:true,value:123},"otherInt":{available:false,value:null}}
However, I want a serialiser to render the same POJO like this:
{"myInt":123}
What I have now:
public class AvailableSerializer extends JsonSerializer<Available<?>> {
@Override
public void serialize(Available<?> available, JsonGenerator jsonGenerator, SerializerProvider provider) throws IOException, JsonProcessingException {
if (available != null && available.isAvailable()) {
jsonGenerator.writeObject(available.getValue());
}
// MISSING: nothing at all should be rendered here for the field
}
@Override
public Class<Available<?>> handledType() {
@SuppressWarnings({ "unchecked", "rawtypes" })
Class<Available<?>> clazz = (Class) Available.class;
return clazz;
}
}
A test
@Test
public void testSerialize() throws Exception {
SimpleModule module = new SimpleModule().addSerializer(new AvailableSerializer());
ObjectMapper objectMapper = new ObjectMapper();
objectMapper.registerModule(module);
System.out.println(objectMapper.writeValueAsString(new Tmp()));
}
outputs
{"myInt":123,"otherInt"}
Can anyone tell me how to do the "MISSING"-stuff? Or if I'm doing it all wrong, how do I do it then?
The restriction I have is that I don't want the developers to add @Json...
-annotations all the time to fields of type Available
. So the Tmp
-class above is an example of what a typical using class should look like. If that's possible...