cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <>
Subject Re: CXF 2.3.8 + Jackson or Jettison 1.3.7 ?
Date Sun, 01 Feb 2015 21:07:16 GMT
Hi Anthony

I'm CC-ing to the users list because it can be of interest to others.

On 30/01/15 09:35, MULLER, Anthony wrote:
> Hello Sergey,
> About this issue:
> Do you think this will help to troubleshoot the array serialization issue with Jettison?
Not really. JETTISON-142 patch provides a fairly specific work-around 
which works only in JSON->XML->JSON auto conversion cases. The challenge 
there is to investigate if JSON-> XML or JAXB Bean -> JSON can also 
work. Most likely it is not related to the issues you are seeing
> In our case, customers provide us several times the same feedback about the difficulty
to handle the JSON output:
> 1) when no element in an array, we get: reports: ""
> 	--> they'd like: reports : [] or reports : null
> 2) when there is only one element, we get reports: {report: {name = "foo"}}
> 	--> they'd like: reports: {[report: {name = "foo"}]}
> We already know about some existing settings in Jettison (serializedAsArray flag and
this other parameter to provide tag names to deal with), but it is not flexible enough for
us because we have some cases when a tag is effectively in an array, and another XML document
where the same tag name is not in an array...
Jettison 1.3.6 introduces namespace-'local' array keys. For example, 
'n1.a', 'n2.b', where 'n1' and 'n2' are namespace prefixes registered in 
a separate namespace map.
So, if you have a single JSONProvider handling multiple documents where 
an element with a name 'a' is a list in not all of the documents then 
most likely you can use something like 'n1.a', etc, to uniquely identify 
such a property.

I hope migrating to Jettison 1.3.6 can help. Let me know please
Indeed, Jackson would offer a more robust alternative but you'd need to 
annotate the given beans with Jackson annotations...

HTH, Sergey

> I'm looking forward to get your point of view.
> Best regards,
> Anthony

View raw message