Add support for serializing java record types

[eranl]

Please add support for serializing java record types the same way POJOs are supported.

[milaGGL]

Hi @eranl, happy holidays.

Thank you for your suggestion. I will bring this up for team discussion and keep you updated.

[eranl]

Hi @milaGGL,

Since record type support can't be added directly in this jdk8-based library, I have implemented some changes that allow for plugging in external custom mappers, such as for record types. Should I submit a PR with those changes?

I've also implemented the main code for a record mapper plugin, which could be released in a separate, jdk17-based library.

[eranl]

Actually, there is a way to add record type support in this library, using reflection. I'm happy to implement such an approach as well.

[milaGGL]

Hi @milaGGL,

Since record type support can't be added directly in this jdk8-based library, I have implemented some changes that allow for plugging in external custom mappers, such as for record types. Should I submit a PR with those changes?

I've also implemented the main code for a record mapper plugin, which could be released in a separate, jdk17-based library.

Yes, please create a pull request. An informative PR will be very helpful when I bring this up to team discussion after the holiday break.

If I understand correctly, the record type support needs to be implemented differently for jdk8-based library and jdk11-based library. Which library is using the reflection? Could you please create separate PRs for both implementations?

[eranl]

To clarify, the two options are:

1. add a record type mapper directly in this jdk8-based library, using reflection. Reflection is needed because records are not supported in jdk8.
2. add mapper plugin support to this library, and create a separate jdk17-based library containing a record type mapper, using that plugin support. Reflection would not be needed in this case, since records are fully supported in jdk17. This is the option I already have an implementation for.

Each approach has its advantages. option 2 would allow for plugging in any custom mapper, which can be seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage.

Let me submit a PR for option 2, to kick off the discussion.

Happy New Year!

[milaGGL]

Hi @eranl, just want to follow up on the PR you have mentioned.

[eranl]

Hi @milaGGL,

PR posted.

[milaGGL]

Thank you @eranl. I will keep you updated on the discussion progress.

[milaGGL]

Hi @ernal. After a team discussion on the PR, we are concerned about making the classes public. It is going to be a public API change in the SDK and there are very strict requirements for it.

However, we are interested in the first option you mentioned. It would be much appreciated if you could put up a PR for that.

Meanwhile, we are going to take note of this serialization feature request and the PR you have send in for future reference. Thank you so much for your suggestions.

[eranl]

Hi @milaGGL,

Makes sense. I'll try to generate a PR for option 1. Will keep you posted.

[eranl]

Hi @milaGGL,

PR for option 1 created.