Consider Date primitive #235
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This allows jersey/jax-ws to handle date representation (by default epoch)
|
+1, see also issue #162 |
|
Jackson still seems to have some problems with dates, but this is a step in the right direction. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I was having issues with Yoga breaking date handling in comparison to how plain Jersey did it. Jersey would serialize an epoch int where as Yoga would just give me { }. I tracked it down into the PojoProperty and it was calling ObjectUtil.isPrimitive(). By adding Date to the list of primitives this solves this issue.
I can't imagine any time you would ever want to get the date object or use a selector on it (seeing as how it only has one non-deprecated method). I checked and do not see any reason this should cause issues and all tests passed.
Let me know what you think. I've been able to work around this via extending PojoProperty but I feel like this is more the desired behavior.