You've got my +1 too. I'd like to see it exactly as you've both outlined. Thanks. mike
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo <[email protected]>wrote: > Dims, that's exactly what I was thinking. Lets incubate it here and then > push it out once it's picked up some traction. > > > > [image: Inactive hide details for Davanum Srinivas ---10/08/2010 08:40:53 > AM---+1 from me Nick. Once people start using it and want to]Davanum > Srinivas ---10/08/2010 08:40:53 AM---+1 from me Nick. Once people start > using it and want to use it outside of Wink, they can just use the stand > alone jar. > > > *Davanum Srinivas <[email protected]>* > > 10/08/2010 08:40 AM > Please respond to > [email protected] > > > To > > [email protected] > cc > > > Subject > > Re: A new JSON model > > +1 from me Nick. Once people start using it and want to use it outside of > Wink, they can just use the stand alone jar. > If there is more traction, we can even move it to a separate ASF project if > needed. > > thanks, > dims > > On 10/08/2010 09:36 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote: > > > > > > Today, developers are able to model JSON content using a number of object > > forms. In Wink, the two most common forms are a) creating/modeling JSON > > via Jackson and Java beans, and b) creating/model via the APIs in the > > json.org library. The former stands as is without issue. From a > technical > > standpoint, the latter is a fine solution, but the license of the > json.org > > library is not something that several Wink consumers are unwilling to > > accept. > > > > As a solution, I'd like to contribute a similar library called JSON4J and > > have that included as a separate module within Wink. This code has > existed > > for a few years now within IBM and provides a similar model to what the > > json.org library includes. The API is simple and based on standard Java > > collection APIs. Specific APIs exist for JSON objects, arrays, strings > > along with utility classes for converting to/from XML. > > > > The APIs have been abstracted from the original JSON4J implementation to > > provide the greatest level of compatibility with existing json.org > > signatures. As such, the end goal is to provide a package for which > > migration is as close as simple package rename as possible. > > > > I will be creating a JIRA with a patch that includes the classes and > > available unit tests. I'd like to request the community's input on the > > desire for this type of package. My view would be to have this be > included > > as a separate Maven module under the base tree. > > > > -Nick > > >
