While I am not very familiar with JAX-RS 2.x specification, I assume It should have backward compatibility with 1.x. If that is true, I cannot see any problems of enabling 1.x support in Jackson future releases.
So my thought on that is using the specific implementation depending on environment application has. I feel there is no major issue in that, but gives a flexibility to framework (like give performance improvements, bug fixes, etc. to the crowd using old one specs). Besides, It could give you an advantage of using bleeding edge version of Jackson on old and outdated environments (legacy, not Jersey 1.x I mean :) ), which will not be updated to JAX-RS 2.x ever. Thanks, Nick пятница, 7 октября 2016 г., 2:55:07 UTC+3 пользователь Tatu Saloranta написал: > > First of all, I am not against allowing JAX-RS 1.x usage per se, if and as > feasible. As long as it does not prevent from supporting 2.x usage which is > increasing via DropWizard and other platforms that insulate users from > Jersey (and other JAX-RS implementations). > Simple dropping was based on receiving no feedback indicating there was > significant usage, so assumption was that JAX-RS 1.x usage was a legacy > thing. > > Do you think it'd be possible to build against 2.x (needed for the new > `jaxrs-datatype` module with minimal 2.x type support, which is not useful > for 1.x), but avoid using 2.x api for core jax-rs provider? > My impression is that there should not be many things that are problematic. > > If anyone knows specific problems with provider -- and, if possible, an > easy way to test compatibility? -- wrt JAX-RS 1.x, as of Jackson 2.8, we > could definitely consider workarounds. > > -+ Tatu +- > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Николай Гриценко <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Your assumptions are not right. As far as I know many people still uses >> Jersey 1.x (and JAX-RS 1.x), because of many issues the Jersey 2.x has >> (e.g. own DI framework, which is hardly compatible with Guice). That is the >> reason, why many developers stick with version 1.x. >> >> I think It would be nice to have an option to use JAX-RS 1.x or 2.x, >> depend on environment application has. We want new features of Jackson, but >> Jersey 2 is frustrating and we cannot upgrade to JAX-RS 2.x >> >> четверг, 12 мая 2016 г., 22:38:50 UTC+3 пользователь Tatu Saloranta >> написал: >> >>> Quick question: currently Jackson JAX-RS only requires JAX-RS (API) 1.1 >>> version. But there are some 2.x types that would be nice to support, so >>> would it be ok to increase minimum baseline to 2.0? >>> I remember that many Jersey versions uses 1.1 JAX-RS, but don't know if >>> such versions might still be in active use; I assume they aren't. >>> Please let me know if JAX-RS 1.1 is still widely used. >>> >>> -+ Tatu +- >>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "jackson-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jackson-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
