Hi Francois! Sorry, forgot to pull the answer over here. I asked for clarification and quickly got a reply from Dmitry.
https://java.net/projects/jsonb-spec/lists/users/archive/2017-04/message/1 hth. LieGrue, strub > Am 14.04.2017 um 10:16 schrieb COURTAULT Francois > <francois.courta...@gemalto.com>: > > Hello Romain & Mark, > > My question is more when the JSON-B (JSR 367) Proposed Final Draft will be > issued as the Public Review Ballot has occurred in July 2016 ? > > Best Regards. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] > Sent: vendredi 14 avril 2017 10:09 > To: users@tomee.apache.org > Subject: [+SPAM+]: Re: Jackson vs Johnzon JAX-RS provider > > Bonjour François, > > JSON-B is "almost" final. Understand by that there is no plan to change it > but it is not strictly final too so if something really bad appears to be in > it would get fixed. That said It seems the API is pretty stable now so you > can use it IMHO. > > > 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> > > 2017-04-14 10:06 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois < > francois.courta...@gemalto.com>: > >> Hello Mark, >> >> Any update ? >> >> Best Regards. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID] >> Sent: mercredi 5 avril 2017 21:50 >> To: users@tomee.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Jackson vs Johnzon JAX-RS provider >> >> Hi Francois! >> >> I can ask! >> Plz ping me if you don't hear from me in say 5 days. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >>> Am 05.04.2017 um 12:20 schrieb COURTAULT Francois < >> francois.courta...@gemalto.com>: >>> >>> Hello Mark, >>> >>> BTW, is the JSON-B (JSR 367) spec finalized ? >>> At https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=367 , the latest stage is >>> Public Review Ballot. There is not yet a Proposed Final Draft :-( >>> >>> If not, when do you think it will be ? >>> >>> Best Regards. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID] >>> Sent: samedi 1 avril 2017 18:56 >>> To: users@tomee.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Jackson vs Johnzon JAX-RS provider >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> 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. >> > ________________________________ > 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.
