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,
https://jsr311.dev.java.net/nonav/javadoc/javax/ws/rs/ext/MessageBodyWriter.html#writeTo(T,%20java.lang.Class,%20java.lang.reflect.Type,%20java.lang.annotation.Annotation[],%20javax.ws.rs.core.MediaType,%20javax.ws.rs.core.MultivaluedMap,%20java.io.OutputStream)
type - the class of object that
Hi Benson
In MessageBodyWriter.writeTo() it's actually Class? which is in the
signature. And there's no return value.
We could've implemented just MessageBodyWriter as opposed to MessageBodyWriterObject but it would stiill cause warning in the user
test code
I can agree that
Hi
[1] +1 to b. yes it does, I haven't tried but users can wrap whatever
providers they want into their custom JAXRS providers. I'd rather do a
system test showing users they can do if they want.
possible pros : jackson will do natural JSON easily
possible cons : it's convention-based, that is
