It's not necessary to change the name of the setter method to avoid ambiguity. You're otherwise on the right track with @JsonIgnore
. With @JsonIgnore
on all of the same-named methods to be ignored, the one to use does not need the @JsonProperty
annotation.
Here's a simple example to demonstrate this point.
input.json: {"value":"forty-two"}
Foo.java:
import java.io.File;
import org.codehaus.jackson.annotate.JsonIgnore;
import org.codehaus.jackson.map.ObjectMapper;
public class Foo
{
String value;
public String getValue() {return value;}
public void setValue(String value) {this.value = value;}
@JsonIgnore
public void setValue(int value) {this.value = String.valueOf(value);}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
Foo foo = mapper.readValue(new File("input.json"), Foo.class);
System.out.println(mapper.writeValueAsString(foo));
}
}
If you don't want to alter the pristine POJO defs with a Jackson annotation, then you can use a MixIn
.
import java.io.File;
import org.codehaus.jackson.annotate.JsonIgnore;
import org.codehaus.jackson.map.ObjectMapper;
public class Foo
{
String value;
public String getValue() {return value;}
public void setValue(String value) {this.value = value;}
public void setValue(int value) {this.value = String.valueOf(value);}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
mapper.getDeserializationConfig().addMixInAnnotations(Foo.class, IgnoreFooSetValueIntMixIn.class);
Foo foo = mapper.readValue(new File("input.json"), Foo.class);
System.out.println(mapper.writeValueAsString(foo));
}
}
abstract class IgnoreFooSetValueIntMixIn
{
@JsonIgnore public abstract void setValue(int value);
}
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…