On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:12 AM Ben Weidig <b...@netzgut.net> wrote: > Hi, >
Hello! > @Chris: Where it's feasible we use Jackson, too. But sometimes it's easier > to just use a more "dumb but still JSON-compatible" type without needing an > ObjectMapper. > And the first-class support of in many parts of Tapestry makes it a better > choice for smaller use-cases. So more functionality in these types would be > great. > Indeed, Jackson is great when you want to map JSON to Java objects. Tapestry's own JSON support, as far as I know, was built to cover what Tapestry itself needed, mostly AJAX support, not trying to be a generic JSON library (although it can be used for that, of course). I agree that more functionality in the JSONObject class family would be great. Regarding a possible support for Jackson in Tapestry itself, I'd do it in a separate subproject so we don't introduce another dependency which many projects may not need. We could, for example, support Jackson types and Jackson-mapped objects in the return value of onActivate() and event handler methods just as JSONObject and JSONArray are, make it easy to have type coercions to and from Jackson mapped objects, etc. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do it and now I'm focusing on getting Tapestry 5.6 released and then 5.7 with proper Java 9 modules support. > -- Thiago
