Re: [aerogear-dev] JSON Serialization in Android

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: +1 Yes, I think we should provide pluggability. Maybe even for 1.0 as it seems fairly easy. This would cover our current serialization needs: public interface Marshaller<T> { void String marshal(T obj) throws IOException; void List<T> unmarshal(String json) throws IOException; } With Builder pattern you could specify Marshaller at Pipe creation time i.e.: new Pipe.Builder().useMarshaller(Pipe.DEFAULT_MARSHALLER) .name("tasks") .useClass(Task.class).build(). Where Pipe.DEFAULT_MARSHALLER == "org.aerogear.android.serialization.impl.GSONMarshaller"; User has no compile-time dependency on impl detail, and has the ability to plug in something of her own. (I noticed Builder vs. Configuration object debate. Will comment more there.) 2.1) How much do we want to expose/allow to be configured? (No idea) The above pattern doesn't account for any configuration. System properties could be used (ugly). But it can be changed - use MarshallerFactory object instead of Marshaller class name: public interface MarshallerFactory { Marshaller newMarshaller(); } new Pipe.Builder().useMarshallerFactory(new org.aerogear.android.serialization.GSONMarshallerFactory()) .name("tasks") .build(); This time GSONMarshallerFactory is part of an API. And user can create any implementation of MarshallerFactory and use it to create and configure a custom Marshaller. I think pluggability would be really good to have for version 1.0 already. As it influences the builder / factory patterns. It's the only way to make sure the patterns we use really are pluggable otherwise we may very quickly have to deprecate some of 1.0 API. Besides Serialization one aspect of pluggability could be Transport i.e. plug in HttpURLConnection instead of HttpClient. - marko Relevant Jira:https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-596