tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From tam <>
Subject Re: Johnzon - bugs or features?
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2016 05:19:20 GMT
@sgjava: Thanks, I'll have a try. That supports my suspicion that that
Johnzon thing is still immature and the 0.x-incubating numbering scheme
might be taken seriously.

@Romain: Spontaneously, I was in favor of providing some documentation
myself. But after another frustrating week with TomEE 7 and that Johnzon
thing, the old textbook wisdom came to my mind: Documenting an artefact can
only be done by its developers. As long as documentation is lacking, a user
like me can only guess about the properties of the artefact and therefore
not give any valid advice to others.

Examples: I have one POJO that gets properly serialized without any @Xml...
annotations. It has private fields and public getters and setters. Other
POJOs, also having private fields and public getters and setters, won't get
serialized without any annotations. The "documentation" given in shows a few lines creating a mapper for
MySuperObject, followed by an explanation that now objects of MyModel will
be serialized to JSON. What does MySuperObject have to do with MyModel? No
one from the outside can shed light into this mess.

There are three lines on JSON-B. The first of them says "not fully
compliant". The third says "It fully reuses the JSON-B as API". Why
"reuses"? Does it implement the API of JSON-B? If it implements it fully,
why is it called "not fully compliant"? How should an outsider document
where it is compliant and where not?

I'm also wary of the @JohnzonIgnore, @JohnzonConverter, and @JohnzonProperty
annotations. Lots of efforts are made in the JEE world to standardize
interfaces and make our code independent of the implementation of an
interface. Should I actually clutter my code with library specific

Bottom line: It is nebulous which JEE standards that Johnzon thing
implements to what degree. Until this is resolved, it should not be included
in a (non-experimental) JEE container.

View this message in context:
Sent from the TomEE Users mailing list archive at

View raw message