cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Possible alternative source of JSON
Date Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:08:14 GMT
I'm going to start an omnibus thread.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozk@progress.com>wrote:

>
>
>  http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonInFiveMinutes
>>
>> It looks to me as if a Jackson 'provider' would be a pretty
>> straightforward
>> construction. To be clear, there's be no CXF DataBinding in the process at
>> all. Jackson maps pojos to JSON and vica versa.
>>
>> The plus side of this is that it would yield, if successful, 'natural'
>> json,
>> unencrusted with namespace glop, in both directions.
>>
>> The minus side of this would be that it doesn't help those people who want
>> a
>> JSON JAX-RS endpoint as a sort of instant side-effect of their preexisting
>> stack of JAXB @nnotations or Aegis XML files or whatever.
>>
>> Personally, I think that I'd be coding something a whole lot more useful
>> by
>> adding this than by putting more lipstick on the pig of producing and
>> consuming extremely ugly JSON via Aegis.
>>
>> Admittedly, 'unqualified' Aegis would be helpful, but if Jackson already
>> does the job, why do all that work?
>>
>
> Let me ask you the other question. If users have already done Aegis, why
> would they want to bring in Jackson ?
> 'unqualified' Aegis will do exactly what they want too, as far as dealing
> with explicit collections/maps is concerned
>
> cheers, Sergey
>
>
>
>> Not to mention the fact that Tatu is likely to prove responsive in case of
>> need.
>>
>>

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