is there a simpler way of writing this class? I feel like my coworker could just use lateinit, but ...

# announcements

[snowe]

is there a simpler way of writing this class?

I feel like my coworker could just use lateinit, but I don't know if jsonproperty allows that...

-.kt

[bloder]

A simple data class is not enough?

[snowe]

data class would allow you to set all three params. He's restricted it with private set, and individual constructors.

[bloder]

like this:

data class SupportRequirements(
        @JsonProperty(value = "and") val andSupportRequirements: Array<String>? = null,
        @JsonProperty(value = "or") val orSupportRequirements: Array<String>? = null,
        val supportRequirement: String? = null
) : Serializable

[bloder]

u can set like this:

SupportRequirements(supportRequirement = "")

[snowe]

it doesn't restrict it though.

[snowe]

it's still possible to set all three.

[snowe]

you have no protection against it. It's not a Union.

[snowe]

He's going for a union.

[bloder]

maybe u can create functions to instantiate the data class

[snowe]

no, we're using a framework. It will create this class itself. Oh well.

[snowe]

thanks for trying.

[fred.deschenes]

I'm guessing this object is received from a client and is deserialized with Jackson right?

[snowe]

we're using the axon framework, so the 'client' is another microservice, but yes.

[snowe]

i believe so.

[fred.deschenes]

you might be able to do something with Jackson's polymorphic deserialization stuff, let me try something

[snowe]

huh. haven't heard of that!

[fred.deschenes]

https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-docs/wiki/JacksonPolymorphicDeserialization

[snowe]

ahhh. the adding class info. I have done that before actually.

[snowe]

I'll mention it to him. thanks

[fred.deschenes]

I'm not sure you can use the actual names of the properties to select which implementation is going to be used but you can add a "@type" property and switch on this

[fred.deschenes]

np