tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jackson vs Johnzon JAX-RS provider
Date Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:09:26 GMT
Bonjour Fran├žois,

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.Courtault@gemalto.com>:

> Hello Mark,
>
> Any update ?
>
> Best Regards.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@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.Courtault@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:struberg@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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> 2017-03-31 17:17 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
> >> Francois.Courtault@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:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: vendredi 31 mars 2017 16:57
> >>> To: users@tomee.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Jackson vs Johnzon JAX-RS provider
> >>>
> >>> Hi Fran├žois,
> >>>
> >>> 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.Courtault@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.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message