Support additionalProperties from json schema

[joelittlejohn]

Original author: matthew....@gmail.com (December 22, 2010 16:42:22)

In case we don't know in advance what all the properties will be, we would still like to be able to marshall and unmarshall into Java easily.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/jsonschema2pojo/issues/detail?id=5

[joelittlejohn]

From matthew....@gmail.com on December 22, 2010 16:47:27
{"description":"something with additional properties",
"id":"Example",
"properties":{"XXX":{"type":"string"}},
"additionalProperties":true
}

would make

{"XXX":"something",
"another property":"something else"}

valid, and I would expect the Java API to be like:

example.getAdditionalProperty("another property") returns "something else"

or

example.getAdditionalProperties() returns Map<String, Object>

[joelittlejohn]

From matthew....@gmail.com on December 22, 2010 17:36:57
Actually my first code example would conflict if there was actually a property called "AdditionalProperty" - so don't try that :)

[joelittlejohn]

From joelittl...@gmail.com on December 22, 2010 19:07:47
Hi Matthew, I've already implemented this one in a local branch. I'm having some strange results when merging back into trunk though - more down to my lack of hg knowledge than any real problem with resolving conflicts.

The details are:

@JsonAnySetter
void setAdditionalProperties(String name, TYPE value) {...}

@JsonAnyGetter
Map<String,TYPE> getAdditionalProperties() {...}

The spec is a little hard to understand but I believe "additionalProperties":true is invalid. The default for additionalProperties is an empty schema (any additional props allowed), if additionalProperties is present it must be either false (no additional props allowed) or a schema (additional props allowed, but values must be valid according to the given schema).

So "additionalProperties":true should actually be written as "additionalProperties":{} or, alternatively, by not specifying the additionalProperties property at all.

[joelittlejohn]

From joelittl...@gmail.com on December 22, 2010 20:43:36
Tip of the day: feature branches are not a good workflow for Mercurial :D

[joelittlejohn]

From joelittl...@gmail.com on December 23, 2010 00:06:52
Fixed in 0.1.3