I'm going to start an omnibus thread. On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonInFiveMinutes >> >> It looks to me as if a Jackson 'provider' would be a pretty >> straightforward >> construction. To be clear, there's be no CXF DataBinding in the process at >> all. Jackson maps pojos to JSON and vica versa. >> >> The plus side of this is that it would yield, if successful, 'natural' >> json, >> unencrusted with namespace glop, in both directions. >> >> The minus side of this would be that it doesn't help those people who want >> a >> JSON JAX-RS endpoint as a sort of instant side-effect of their preexisting >> stack of JAXB @nnotations or Aegis XML files or whatever. >> >> Personally, I think that I'd be coding something a whole lot more useful >> by >> adding this than by putting more lipstick on the pig of producing and >> consuming extremely ugly JSON via Aegis. >> >> Admittedly, 'unqualified' Aegis would be helpful, but if Jackson already >> does the job, why do all that work? >> > > Let me ask you the other question. If users have already done Aegis, why > would they want to bring in Jackson ? > 'unqualified' Aegis will do exactly what they want too, as far as dealing > with explicit collections/maps is concerned > > cheers, Sergey > > > >> Not to mention the fact that Tatu is likely to prove responsive in case of >> need. >> >>
