vidakovic commented on code in PR #4281: URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/4281#discussion_r2041193050
########## fineract-command/src/main/java/org/apache/fineract/command/persistence/converter/JsonAttributeConverter.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +/** + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.fineract.command.persistence.converter; + +import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.JsonNode; +import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ObjectMapper; +import jakarta.persistence.AttributeConverter; +import jakarta.persistence.Converter; +import lombok.RequiredArgsConstructor; +import lombok.SneakyThrows; +import lombok.extern.slf4j.Slf4j; + +@Slf4j +@RequiredArgsConstructor +@Converter +public class JsonAttributeConverter implements AttributeConverter<JsonNode, String> { Review Comment: Well, I did this exercise already in a different setting and the JsonNode is actually already quite convenient when the rest of your infrastructure depends on Jackson anyway (which is the ultimate goal here). The only reason why these two data structures are persistent is for a specific use case, deferred execution (aka "maker-checker"), otherwise I would have left it out anyway. Overall I am not expecting that we will poke and peek too much into/from this data structure anyway, so the type actually doesn't matter too much. By default we are NOT saving every request, only those that are deferred (which should not be many)... and as they are deferred speed is counted in hours/days not milliseconds. And given that one of the main goals of this exercise is to introduce type-safety makes string kind of a wrong choice from my perspective. Concerning saving JSON data as a string: that is anyway a compromise. Both databases (MySQL and PostgreSQL) have specific data types for JSON (which is of course non-standard); unfortunately they have different approaches (I think PostgreSQL's is the better one) and it was impossible to abstract this away properly with JPA on the database side. That's why I fell back on the least common denominator (string). If we had only PostgreSQL I would have chosen their native JSON type (which would allow for proper querying... which we don't need). Just FYI. In short: I think this should be fine as is. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
