in JacksonKT (the port of Jackson JR to Kotlin) it uses Kotlin reflection for any Kotlin class and only uses that. For Java it uses bean rules.

I’m trying to get JacksonKT done before Monday

I see

it includes handling of default method parameters, nullable types, as well

(has a lite version and one using full reflection too)

it's just that I have my custom framework for jersey, jackson and kotlin. and I made the mistake of using java reflection.

now consider that kotin class has property isFoo. in java bytecode it will have isFoo which translates to just foo by javabean convention

you can add a JsonProperty annotation to anything that doesn’t match the JSON name and that will give you full control

the problem is that I also generate stubs with bytecode generation an I relied on java names because I needed to mach signatures, but this can be solved as well what I'm trying to say is that from kotlin perspective changed isFoo generation is bad, because it makes the mapping more complex

but that doesn’t affect the jackson plugin if you add the @JsonProperty

or, you can add an annotation of Kotlin to set the platform name of the getter/setter maybe? have you asked about that?

@setter:PlatformName(“isFoo”)

something like that, not sure

yes, I did that too simple smile but apparently it doesn't work https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-9699

but my point is that either JvmName or JsonProperty is a workaround

for a feature that is needed only for java interop

I think in Kotlin and Jackson I always looked at the parameter name, not the bean name for constructors, so that doesn’t change for people that have all the properties in the constructor. for those that have them in the body, it might have changed.

yes, I’m only trying to deal with the Jackson issue here in this chat

so with Jackson, it doesnt’ matter, you can add the annotation

even in generated bytecode

seems legit

on KT-9699, some java bean libraries look at both getter and setter to decide name, try setting both.

well val doesn't have a setter

ah, read only ya

do you think that when introspecting kotlin classes

val isFoo

should be translated to

isFoo

without explicit @JsonProperty("isFoo")?

Jackson core only looks at getter/setters when not using a constructor or JsonCreator parameter. a JsonProperty on the value overrides all of that for mapping the name to the JSON equivalent.

when using a constructor parameter or JsonCreator parameter, it uses the name of the parameter, not the name of the property/field/bean info

but, it may think that property name and the name of the method parameter are two different properties

if they disagree when looked at