Skip to content

Conversation

@komamitsu
Copy link
Member

See #145

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can add name property here to specify jar name (e.g., jackson-databind-msgpack)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@xerial xerial added this to the v07 milestone Nov 9, 2014
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

MessagePackFactory is already used in msgpack-core. Can you rename it?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm. Jackson-dataformat-xxxx uses a naming convention (Data format name)Factory such as SmileFactory, CsvFactory, YAMLFactory, XmlFactory and AvroFactory. So I can't come up with a better name than MessagePackFactory. Also, I think having the same class names isn't an import issue because ordinary developers don't need to consider it other than developers of jackson-dataformat-msgpack (off course, we can use the correct class with each package name).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But in the msgpack-jackson/README.md, you mentioned

only you need to do is to instantiate MessagePackFactory
https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack-java/pull/146/files#diff-c1644750de4c3267355de3f00a0f6f05R20

It's already ambiguous.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed core.MessagePackerFactory, and packer/unpacker can be instantiated from MessagePack class, so it's okay to leave jackson/MessagePackFactory class name unchanged.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All right. Thanks.

README.md Outdated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please explain what is jackson-databind. For example,

You can use jackson-databind to serialize/deserialize Java objects in MessagePack format. For details, see msgpack-jackson/README.md

@xerial
Copy link
Member

xerial commented Nov 11, 2014

package name org.msgpack.jackson.dataformat.msgpack is a little bit long. Is it possible to shorten it to 'org.msgpack.jackson'?

@xerial
Copy link
Member

xerial commented Nov 11, 2014

To avoid the name conflict of MessagePackFactory , I migrated the functionality of core.MessagePackFactory to MessagePack class.

@komamitsu
Copy link
Member Author

package name

Good point. I'll change it.

@komamitsu
Copy link
Member Author

@xerial I made the package name shorter.

@xerial
Copy link
Member

xerial commented Nov 12, 2014

@komamitsu
Is dataformat package necessary? If we do not add any class under org.msgpack.jackson package, we can move the classes in org.msgpack.jackson.dataformat to org.msgpack.jackson.

If there is a possibility to add some org.msgpack.jackson.XXX class in future, using org.msgpack.jackson.dataformat is ok.

@komamitsu
Copy link
Member Author

@xerial I think it's possible we extend jackson core library as org.msgpack.jackson.core.* in the future. So we'd better to keep the package name org.msgpack.jackson.dataformat.

xerial and others added 3 commits November 13, 2014 15:53
Signed-off-by: Tsuyoshi Ozawa <ozawa.tsuyoshi@gmail.com>
@oza
Copy link
Member

oza commented Nov 13, 2014

Looks good to me. Merging.

oza added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2014
@oza oza merged commit cb918ab into v07-develop Nov 13, 2014
@xerial xerial deleted the v07-add-jackson-dataformat branch November 13, 2014 08:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants