Re: Possible alternative source of JSON
I'm going to start an omnibus thread. On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Sergey Beryozkin 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. >> >>
Re: Possible alternative source of JSON
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.
Re: Possible alternative source of JSON
Sergey, I think it is important that we work toward a clearly stated goal here. You originally recruited me to plug in Aegis to JAX-RS because, as I recall, the DOSGi people wanted a way to use JAX-RS without the burden of JAX-B and other related components. Now, on the one hand, Aegis+Jettison produces very ugly JSON, and we do not have any design at hand to support a read side without making even uglier demands on the producers of the JSON we would read. It doesn't produce such beautiful XML, either. On the other hand, the Jackson components are small and produce clean JSON, and if Tatu hasn't packed them up as OSGI bundles yet, I'm sure he will. Heck, I'd rather spend time on that with him that adding more lipstick to a distinctively porcine combination of Aegis and Jettison. If I've misremembered or mistated the goal here, please correct me. --benson
Re: Possible alternative source of JSON
They don't have to wrap it. There's a full JAX-RS 1.0 provider provided. I added a test for our cooperation with it to the systests. Why don't we just endorse it over our on JSON provider? It makes cleaner JSON, and is smaller, lighter, faster and more flexible. On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Users can easily wrap Jackson if they prefer. We can add a property to > existing providers which will allow for namespaces be dropped altogether > during the serialization if users prefer to parse JSON manually. > > Cheers, Sergey > > -Original Message- > From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com] > Sent: 05 September 2009 22:40 > To: CXF Dev > Subject: Possible alternative source of JSON > > 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? > > Not to mention the fact that Tatu is likely to prove responsive in case > of > need. >
RE: Possible alternative source of JSON
Users can easily wrap Jackson if they prefer. We can add a property to existing providers which will allow for namespaces be dropped altogether during the serialization if users prefer to parse JSON manually. Cheers, Sergey -Original Message- From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 September 2009 22:40 To: CXF Dev Subject: Possible alternative source of JSON 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? Not to mention the fact that Tatu is likely to prove responsive in case of need.
Possible alternative source of JSON
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? Not to mention the fact that Tatu is likely to prove responsive in case of need.