Tatu Saloranta

Good point -- either would work but maybe "AND" is better. As long as we use whichever conjunctive consistently. So let's go with "and". Will update accordingly. @JooHyukKim Yes, start...

Yes, and trying to use `convertValue()` on types with polymorphic handling is asking for trouble as well. I am not sure I understand intended use case here. @blacelle What exactly...

What really might cause problems is `@JsonValue` with polymorphic handling -- interaction between delegated serializer of "serialize-as-this-instead" type, and `TypeSerializer` constructed for `AroundString` is probably getting confused. I am not...

@blacelle Just to re-iterate: filing bugs for suspicious things is always welcome! I think we should leave this open for now. I wish I had time to dig into it,...

> Why does the lack of a valueSerializaer leads to a different way to serialize the type? I mean, naively, I would expect the code to look like: I concur...

Um, what is `@JsonValueType` ?

One quick note: it is not a good idea to try to combine `@JsonUnwrapped` with `Optional`. That is unlikely to work, at all, since semantics of combination are unclear (unwrapping...

Serialization is trivially simple compared to deserialization, unfortunately, and sides are not symmetric in many ways: for example, actual runtime type is available during serialization but not deserialization (only declared...

Since handling of annotations (processing) is not here but in `jackson-databind`, will transfer.

Minor note: will fix the Javadoc.