Would this change have the potential to break anyone's existing applications? If so, can we add a switch so it can still work the current way? Other than that, it sounds like a reasonable change - it makes sense to work in the same way as CXF out the box.
Jon On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>wrote: > Your reasons sounds enough to change it for me, > > @others: any other opinion? > > if everybody is ok to switch the default (maybe wait a week) please Reinis > open a jira to change the default > > is it ok for you? > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > > 2012/11/1 Reinis Vicups <[email protected]> > > > Hello, > > > > as I understand it, the standard (out-of-the-box) CXF configuration > > expects the root object not to be wrapped in an array. If this is the > case, > > the standard providers work as expected! I checked this on TomEE by > > removing square brackets from an complex object - they do work. > > > > So my question is - how can solution be writing own providers, if: > > > > 1. when supplying a single object, JSONProvider formats it as an array > > causing CXF to fail during unmarshaling thus being unable to unmarshal > > something it marshaled itself. Shouldn't the default config be the way > that > > CXF is atleast able to unmarshal stuff it itself marshaled just a method > > ago? > > > > 2. default providers work as expected other than in the case when > provided > > single root object is falsely(?) formatted as an array? > > > > I am experiencing the very same error and just cannot accept these two > > aspects (CXF being unable to unmarshal something it just marshaled itself > > and being forced to write own providers only because of one bug(?)) > > > > br > > Reinis > > > > > > On 10/29/2012 06:11 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > >> well you just need to provide your own providers. you can't just > override > >> this attribute. > >> > >> here how the conf works: > >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.**com/2012/10/04/jax-rsjax-ws-** > >> configuration-for-tomee-1-5-0/< > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/jax-rsjax-ws-configuration-for-tomee-1-5-0/ > > > >> > >> *Romain Manni-Bucau* > >> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/**rmannibucau< > https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> > >> >* > >> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.**wordpress.com/*< > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*> > >> <http://**rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/**rmannibucau*< > http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*> > >> *Github: https://github.com/**rmannibucau*< > https://github.com/rmannibucau*> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2012/10/29 kcundick <[email protected]> > >> > >> Great. Thank you for your response. > >>> > >>> Can you give me more information on how you can set the > serializeAsArray > >>> to > >>> false whether within the openejb-jar.xml file or within the > application? > >>> > >>> Thank you again for your time. > >>> > >>> Kevin > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> View this message in context: > >>> http://openejb.979440.n4.**nabble.com/Possible-JSON-bug-** > >>> in-TomEE-1-5-and-1-5-1-**tp4658328p4658331.html< > http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Possible-JSON-bug-in-TomEE-1-5-and-1-5-1-tp4658328p4658331.html > > > >>> Sent from the OpenEJB User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >>> > >>> > > >
