[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1126?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13788306#comment-13788306
 ] 

Doug Cutting commented on AVRO-1126:
------------------------------------

As Scott pointed out, a pre-requisite to upgrading is removing the exposure of 
Jackson 1.x APIs in Avro's public API.  In particular, Jackson's JsonNode is 
currently used to represent json-valued schema & field properties.  We should 
file a separate issue to replace JsonNode with JSR 353's JsonValue.  Jackson 
2.0 already supports JSR 353, and is now the standard abstract API for Json in 
Java.

> Upgrade to Jackson 2+
> ---------------------
>
>                 Key: AVRO-1126
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1126
>             Project: Avro
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: java
>            Reporter: James Tyrrell
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Quite annoyingly with Jackson 2+ the base package name has changed from 
> org.codehaus.jackson to com.fasterxml.jackson so in addition to changing the 
> dependencies from:
> {code:xml} 
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>org.codehaus.jackson</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jackson-core-asl</artifactId>
>     <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>org.codehaus.jackson</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jackson-mapper-asl</artifactId>
>     <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> {code} 
> to:
> {code:xml} 
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jackson-core</artifactId>
>     <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jackson-databind</artifactId>
>     <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> {code} 
> the base package in the code needs to be updated. More info can be found 
> [here|http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonUpgradeFrom19To20], I am happy to do 
> the work just let me know what is preferable i.e. should I just attach a 
> patch to this issue?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Reply via email to