Karl Pauls wrote > Hi, > > as discussed with Stefan Seifert on SLING-6685, we would like to move > the JSONUtil class out of the o.a.s.xss package into a separate sub > package (o.a.s.xss.json). > > Right now, it introduces a dependency on the javax.json package for > the o.a.s.xss package. That is the reason we have to bump the version > to 2.0.0 due to the commons.json removable. If we move it into its own > package we wouldn't have to do that if we every switch json providers > again :-). > > As we are bumping the major version anyways, I don't think this is a > big deal - hence, I'm calling for lazy consensus (in other words, if > you object, speak up now). > Do we need this util class in the api at all? (I have no idea, but just asking the obvious question) If yes, moving it to a separate package and maybe naming either the package or the class in a way that it is clear that this is bound to javax.json and not a general purpose json util sounds like the right thing to do.
I understand that for semantic versioning we have to increase the major version of the api. How do we deal with all the code out there currently importing 1.x? Can we find a way that does not require everyone to change her code? Regards Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland cziege...@apache.org
