tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID>
Subject Re: Jackson vs Johnzon JAX-RS provider
Date Sat, 01 Apr 2017 16:56:20 GMT
> 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.
>> 


Mime
View raw message