Hi David A boolean 'dropRootName' property can be used for a root element be dropped. A "wrapperName" string property can be used to 'add' it back to the incoming sequence. It's documented but I'll need to add tables...
Generally, even today, one can customize the JAXB or JSON based output by registering a custom XMLStreamWriter which will be trivial enough for many cases. XSLTJaxbProvider can also do it... I'm planning to support some customization cases by using XMLStreamWriter under the hood cheers, Sergey KARR, DAVID (ATTCINW) wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 9:26 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: How to make clean json, instead of xml-ish json? >> >> Hi, >> >> CXF Jettison based provider can be asked to drop a root element so > it's >> easy to get rid of the root Item wrapper. > > How is that done, exactly? > >> This is obviously a convention that Jackson drops it be default. Note >> that a JAXRS client won't be able to read a rootless sequence, >> for example when testing a service with a client api, so such a >> sequence is handy when using some JSON utilities which expect no >> root, etc. CXF JSONProvider can actually be asked to 'append' a root >> element to an incoming rootless sequence. > > I had realized that rootless JSON might have issues when unmarshalling > back into Java. At this point, that's not an issue for me, but I'll > reexamine this if it ever does. > >> The next thing is that CXF produces this JSON (lets assume a root >> element has been dropped, the ordering can be handled with no >> probs by JAXB) : >> >> > {"description":"abc","features":[{"feature":[123,124]}],"id":1,"title": >> "item"} > > In typical JSON usage, ordering of the properties of a single object is > not meaningful, except for cosmetic reasons. > >> Jackson produces a simpler and possibly more JSON-y (not sure if it >> sounds correct :-)) sequence, but again you can't read with the >> client api (unmarshall into an expected bean - though may be Jackson >> can do but I'll be surprised). With CXF it will be possible >> soon enough to configure it to 'massage' the output sequence as needed >> for JSON be easily consumed by say a running javascript >> client but still allow for a jaxrs client to test the endpoint. > > I'll be willing to examine this when it becomes available. > >> Note myself and Dejan (Jettison mantainer) are planning to put some >> effort into making Jettison a bit more robust but it will not >> likely to happen in the short term > > Good to hear. > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/How-to-make-clean-json%2C-instead-of-xml-ish-json--tp25691271p25721863.html Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
