+1 The doc seems to indicate that JacksonJaxbJsonProvider has the same functionality as JacksonJsonProvider except that it adds the JAXB support. JacksonJaxbJsonProvider extends JacksonJsonProvider. - Jesse -----Mike Rheinheimer <[email protected]> wrote: -----
To: [email protected] From: Mike Rheinheimer <[email protected]> Date: 09/21/2010 02:20PM Subject: Re: Making Jackson the default JSON provider Yup, Jason, you make a good point. If an app developer wishes to use Jackson-specific annotations, they must use JacksonJaxbJsonProvider, so let's be sure to make that the Wink default, not JacksonJsonProvider, if we intend to allow for that. If we don't, then Wink app developers would have to declare JacksonJaxbJsonProvider themselves in their Application subclass getClasses method. I'm ok with making JacksonJaxbJsonProvider the Wink default, thereby allowing Jackson-specific annotations out-of-the-box. Any other opinions? mike On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Jason Dillon <[email protected]> wrote: > The short answer is... I don't know ;-) It does look like the latest 1.6 > JacksonJaxbJsonProvider should work fine as-is. I've just updated my > app to > configure a JacksonJaxbJsonProvider.class via getClasses() and it seems > happy enough. > > I do use the jaxb+json provider here because I am using some jackson > specific annotations, specifically @JsonTypeInfo, to enrich the json data > slightly in some cases. This helps bridge the gap between xml & json wrt > lists of heterogeneous data. Xml worked due to the additional namespaces > introduced, json didn't w/o a little bit of help from jackson. > > --jason > > > On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Jesse A Ramos wrote: > > > Thanks Mike, > > > > Your question was going to be my next one =). Didn't want to convolute > the original query. > > > > I took a look at the Jackson javadoc but didn't find anything that said > what the defaults were. It seemed to me, based on the functionality of > JacksonJaxbJsonProvider and JacksonJsonProvider, that the defaults were > likely the same but I wasn't sure. > > > > - Jesse > > > > -----Mike Rheinheimer <[email protected]> wrote: ----- > > > > To: [email protected] > > From: Mike Rheinheimer <[email protected]> > > Date: 09/21/2010 11:30AM > > Subject: Re: Making Jackson the default JSON provider > > > > +1 to making Jackson the default JSON provider. Most other JAX-RS > > impls > use > > it as their default AFAIK, Jackson is a quite active community, and the > main > > dev lead over there (Tatu Saloranta) was the main developer on Woodstox > STAX > > parser. It's a very high quality project. > > > > Looking at WINK-299, I'm not sure what Jason has that Jackson does not > > already provide by default. The JacksonJsonProvider, which is the base > > class for JacksonJaxbJsonProvider, already has all of what's shown in 299 > as > > its defaults: > > > > > http://svn.jackson.codehaus.org/browse/jackson/trunk/src/jaxrs/java/org/codehaus/jackson/jaxrs/JacksonJsonProvider.java?r=HEAD > > (see locateMapper method, line 565) > > > > Jason, is the explicit mapper instantiation still required, per your code > > snippet in WINK-299? > > > > mike > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Jesse A Ramos <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> In reference to WINK-299: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-299 > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> As mentioned in WINK-299, Jackson seems to be the best available JSON > >> provider. It would be good to make this default for WINK. I > >> don't mind > >> making the change but wanted to get some opinions on a couple of things. > >> > >> 1) Does everyone agree that Jackson should be the default JSON provider? > >> 2) If so, what default configuration settings should we use? > >> > >> For question 2, Jason provided a code snippet for what he is using in > >> WINK-299. It likes good to me as a default configuration. If > >> others > >> agree I can use that, otherwise let me know what other configuration > >> settings you would like to use. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jesse > > > >
