It can certainly be requested. It would be up to the ActiveMQ project to decide if they wanted to make that change. I'd certainly be happy to see what's involved and have a go and send a PR, but if it involves significant effort, I personally would prefer to work on EE8 as a higher priority.
Ultimately though, the priorities for the TomEE project ultimately come down to what the community would like, so feedback is very welcome. Anyone else have any views? Jon On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:33 AM Alex The Rocker <alex.m3...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I agree with dkwakkel, Apache Johnzon should be enought for all TomEE > runtime requirements.Mixing two different JSON processors in same > classpath can lead to a dependency mess. > > After all, ActiveMQ is an Apache project, and even if when it was > developed Apache Johnzon wasn't available, it would make great sense > to replace FasterXML Jackson (which isn't an Apache project, even if > it has Apache License 2.0) by Apache Johnzon. > > How about a JIRA request on ActiveMQ for this "small" change ? :) > > Kind regards, > Alex > > Le mer. 19 juin 2019 à 12:22, Jonathan Gallimore > <jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > I think ActiveMQ pulls jackson in, as it uses Jackson internally. I don't > > know that we could avoid that without forking and making some > (potentially > > big) changes. > > > > Jon > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:36 AM dkwakkel <dkwak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I see both jackson and johnzon are now part of TomEE 8 M2: > > > jackson-annotations-2.9.0.jar > > > jackson-core-2.9.4.jar > > > jackson-databind-2.9.4.jar > > > jackson-dataformat-yaml-2.9.4.jar > > > johnzon-core-1.1.11.jar > > > johnzon-jaxrs-1.1.11.jar > > > johnzon-jsonb-1.1.11.jar > > > johnzon-mapper-1.1.11.jar > > > > > > Should not only johnzon be enough? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from: > > > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-Users-f979441.html > > > >
