On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:50 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:05 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Next, >>>>> I'll look into upgrading to the latest JSON-RPC Jabsorb framework. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How about updating to Jackson instead of Jabsorb? We already use >>>> Jackson in the JSONP binding in 2.x, it seems much more up to date and >>>> designed for what we need in Tuscany. >>>> >>>> ...ant >>>> >>> >>> I had a quick look at jackson, does that have support for JSON-RPC or >>> just JSON ? >>> >>> >> >> Right, it handles just the JSON part, we'd have to layer the rest of >> the protocol on top of that. Not such a big deal though and a similar >> thing as we already do in the binding for the SMD support. >> >> ...ant >> > > Reading a thread in jackson-user [1] it seems that it has JAXB > dependencies ... do you know if that is true ? If so, I'd like to > avoid it as it would prevent the extensions to run on AppEngine. > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/lg3t6z3frw4ijl32 >
That email you reference is actually saying its is Jettison that has dependencies on JAXB not Jackson. Neither have hard dependencies on JAXB though. ...ant
