Deserialization and serialization customizability for @JsonProperty

[cassis163]

Why is it not possible to specify whether @JsonProperty should be used for deserialization, serialization or both?

In my case, I want to create a DTO that maps fields from another API.

public record ProductStatisticsDto(
        @JsonProperty("optionID") long optionId,
        @JsonProperty("VK99") int soldDuringLastNinetynineDays,
        @JsonProperty("VK30") int soldDuringLastThirtyDays,
        @JsonProperty("VK14") int soldDuringLastFourteenDays,
        @JsonProperty("InRecall") int recalledAmount,
        @JsonProperty("InComplaint") int complaintsAmount,
...

The intention was to map the fields to a more readable, consistent version and then return it to the client. However, @JsonProperty applies to both deserialization and serialization. The client receives the DTO in the same way as the server received it from the external system.

I can fix this by creating another DTO that can be constructed with the one from the example, but it feels like a bit of a tedious solution. In this case, I would have preferred something in the lines of @JsonProperty("optionID", onSerialization = false).

[cowtowncoder]

For backwards-compatibility reasons there is @JsonAlias which only applies to deserialization, allowing alternate names. For serialization there needs to be a single canonical name to use.

I think your use case -- essentially, content transformation when remapping names -- falls outside of Jackson's goals; specifically 2 functionality areas are kept out for the most part:

1. Advanced content validation (structural, value domains) -- other frameworks like Bean Validation API are to be used
2. Transformations (esp. structural but also content translations)

If you do want to use Jackson for name translation, you could probably construct separate ObjectMappers with different sets of mix-ins for names.

I think it is unlikely that support would be added for different sets of names for serialization/deserialization, beyond existing set of annotations.

[cassis163]

Alright, that answers my question. I will now close the discussion as this feature request does not apply to Jackson's scope.