> It does (actually an early release included it: johnzon-jsonb module), > another release is coming very soon with a more up to date spec.
To be more precise: the work on JSONP-1.1 and JSONB-1.0 was finished a few days ago! We already checked the API signatures and they are 1:1 with the RIs. Of course every bit of feedback would be welcome. So while this might look a bit offtopic I take the chance to ask for testing ;) svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-json_1.1_spec mvn clean install https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/johnzon.git mvn clean install That should be all. Of course you could also use the apache snapshots repo https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/ More info at https://johnzon.apache.org LieGrue, strub > Am 31.03.2017 um 17:19 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > 2017-03-31 17:17 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois < > francois.courta...@gemalto.com>: > >> Hello Romain, >> >> What do you mean exactly by "lack of modelling of the json model" ? Do you >> think about Java to JSON mapping which is not standardized yet but should >> be soon ? >> > > If you cant almost map 1-1 between the json and your pojo (there are a few > exception like map sinks etc but overall idea is there) then you need to > abuse of trait like feature or views etc. All these features which look > fancy generally lead to a hard to maintain and understand code which is not > something I would recommand if you have the choice (sometimes not like > integrating with 3rd party closed systems but it is rare). > > >> Do you think that the JSON-B specification (JSR 367) will cover this topic >> and will address all the issues ? >> Tell me, if I am wrong, but Johnzon will follow the JSON-B spec, right ? >> >> > It does (actually an early release included it: johnzon-jsonb module), > another release is coming very soon with a more up to date spec. > > >> Best Regards. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] >> Sent: vendredi 31 mars 2017 16:57 >> To: users@tomee.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Jackson vs Johnzon JAX-RS provider >> >> Hi François, >> >> jackson has a few more advanced feature but I'll say a word on it at the >> end. >> In term of perf it is a bit faster but if you use it for JAXRS then HTTP >> is so slow compared to json roundtrip than you dont care of which provider >> you use (in term of scale). >> jackson has more binding support, the most known are yaml and jaxb...but >> that's out of json >> >> Now johnzon is jsonp based, very light and Apache powered compared to >> jackson (to answer to the implicit "why johnzon in tomee"). >> >> About the first point: most of the very advanced features are due to a >> lack of modelling of the json model so before jumping on them you should ask >> yourself: do I need it or am I messing up my app? in 80% of the case it is >> the last one from experience. >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog < >> https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog < >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> >> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory < >> https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> >> >> 2017-03-31 16:39 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois < >> francois.courta...@gemalto.com>: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Any reason to prefer Jackson instead of Johnzon (default JAX-RS >>> provider in TomEE 7.x ) like: >>> >>> - Performance >>> >>> - Functionality (@JsonInclude, @JsonIgnoreProperties with no >>> equivalence in Johnzon) >>> >>> - Others .... >>> ? >>> >>> Best Regards. >>> ________________________________ >>> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the >>> addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized >>> use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited. >>> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable >>> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the >>> intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the >> sender. >>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this >>> transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for >>> damages caused by a transmitted virus. >>> >> ________________________________ >> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees >> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or >> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited. >> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for >> the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended >> recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. >> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission >> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a >> transmitted virus. >>
