0
{
    "8028298d-ec50-4067-8286-feaa39bdba7b": {
        "DUMMY": null,
        "MaxVMs": "1",
        "priority": "2"
    },
    "f35c95e4-4808-4232-b057-0ecfbf735136": {
        "instancetype": "m3.xlarge",
        "datastore": "IOPS EBS",
        "network": null,
        "datacenter": "us-east-1c",
        "region": null,
        "MaxVMs": "2",
        "priority": "3"
    }
}
Alexey Gavrilov
  • 10,593
  • 2
  • 38
  • 48
utkarsh dubey
  • 875
  • 7
  • 19
  • http://stackoverflow.com/a/27286148/3496666 – Kumar Dec 05 '14 at 11:46
  • Thanks for the info but wanted to do that using Jackson. – utkarsh dubey Dec 05 '14 at 12:00
  • That's for jackson only. see here too http://stackoverflow.com/a/27263560/3496666 – Kumar Dec 05 '14 at 12:08
  • Doesn't answers it. How would you map it to a POJO using jackson? – utkarsh dubey Dec 05 '14 at 12:45
  • @mystic http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonDataBinding – Alexey Gavrilov Dec 05 '14 at 13:27
  • Use a `Map`. This format is not good for a POJO. These `"8028298d-ec50-4067-8286-feaa39bdba7b"` are your keys and the values are the object. That value object will be the object you have a POJO for. So it would map to `Map`. There needs to be consistency with the object though. I just notice two of the same properties, that why I suggested this. But if you don't have any format, you are going to have a really tough time mapping the value object to a POJO – Paul Samsotha Dec 05 '14 at 14:00

0 Answers0