Skip to main content

From Gson to Moshi, what I learned

There is no doubt that people are getting away from GSON and I agree with those reasons too. The only advantage GSON has over other parsing libraries is that it takes a really short amount of time to set up. Furthermore, the most important thing is that Moshi is embracing Kotlin support.

First let's implement the dependency:
It's not a struggle to migrate to Moshi. It's really Gson look-a-like. The only thing to do is annotate the object with @field:Json instead of @SerializedName (which is Gsons way for JS representation):

data class User( //GSON way
  val name: String,
  val userName: String,
  val lastName: String,
  val email: String

data class User( //Moshi way
  @field:Json(name = "name")
  val name: String,
  @field:Json(name = "user_name")
  val userName: String,
  @field:Json(name = "last_name")
  val lastName: String,
  @field:Json(name = "email")
  val email: String
Apparently, in order to solve a problem we are done, but we haven't unleashed the full power yet. Remember, this way we haven't still yet implemented the Kotlin support. With this, Moshi comes with some new dependency to add and an annotation processor for generating the adapters. Refer to the docs for more:

implementation("com.squareup.retrofit2:converter-moshi:2.4.0") //needed for retrofit integration when parsing
implementation("com.squareup.moshi:moshi:1.8.0") //core library
implementation("com.squareup.moshi:moshi-kotlin:1.6.0") //kotlin support
kapt("com.squareup.moshi:moshi-kotlin-codegen:1.8.0") // annotation processor, should have apply plugin: 'kotlin-kapt' above

Default values:
In Java, we have the transient keyword in order to use optional values for Moshi, while in Kotlin this is achieved though a @Transient annotation:

@Entity(tableName = "some_table_name")
@JsonClass(generateAdapter = true)
data class SomeEntity(
    @ColumnInfo(name = "some_id")
    @PrimaryKey(autoGenerate = true)
   //I need this field for my Room as an entity but definitely nothing is comming from the server. Mandatory to have a default value for Moshi
    val id: Int = 0,

    @Json(name = "audio")
    @ColumnInfo(name = "audio_url")
    val audioUrl: String,

    @Json(name = "text")
    @ColumnInfo(name = "text")
    val text: String,
If you notice more, the @field:Json is now just a @Json. And we have annotated the class with @JsonClass which helps the class to be encoded as JSON format

If you skipped the reasons why migrating from Gson to Moshi, I'm giving my own reason
- Speed (I immediately noticed that even though in debug mode).
- Kotlin support.
- Proguard rules: If you choose only the Java version of Moshi, you won't need any pro-guard rules for release builds.

Another option.
If you find reasons not to like Moshi, I suggest take a look at Kotlinx Serialization. IMO, it's a little too early to use it, but it surely looks promising.

Stavro Xhardha

Popular posts from this blog

Modularizing your Android app, breaking the monolith (Part 1)

Inspired by a Martin Fowlers post about Micro Frontends, I decided to break my monolithic app into a modular app. I tried to read a little more about breaking monolithic apps in Android, and as far as I got, I felt confident to share my experience with you. This will be some series of blog posts where we actually try to break a simple app into a modularized Android app.

Note: You should know that I am no expert in this, so if there are false statements or mistakes please feel free to criticize, for the sake of a better development. 

What do you benefit from this approach:
Well, people are moving pretty fast nowadays and delivery is required faster and faster. So, in order to achieve this, modularising Android apps is really necessary.You can share features across different apps. Independent teams and less problems per each.Conditional features update.Quicker debugging and fixing.A feature delay doesn't delay the whole app. As per writing tests, there is not too much difference about…

Modularizing your Android app, breaking the monolith (Part 2)

This is part 2 of a series of articles about modularizing Android app. If you haven't yet read the first article, you may find it here.

On our first article we just moved some classes outside the application and applied as an independent module. But what if we have dependencies pulled from the application level? This could be a small challenge. First of all, we want to clarify on how are we going to modularize the app. And depending on the previous article, I chose the by feature version of modularization. First of all, let's show some dependencies that are going to be needed in the whole app.

Note: I'm using Dagger for handling dependencies but manual DI or any dependency tool should be fine to understand this part.

So, this is my dependency schema:

Well, it's not that bad, but this isn't what we want to transform to when trying to modularize the app. If you think about it, modules that don't need a dependency, can get it quite easily. For example: A FeatureXVi…