Skip to content

Conversation

@rmannibucau
Copy link
Contributor

@rmannibucau rmannibucau commented Oct 13, 2018

Goal is to let users switch the impl on need + using johnzon as default
Issue was identified on TomEE where jackson is not desired in the distribution cause there is already johnzon and some

@rmannibucau rmannibucau changed the title [AMQ-7072] moving to JSON-B API instead of jackson [WIP][AMQ-7072] moving to JSON-B API instead of jackson Oct 13, 2018
@rmannibucau rmannibucau force-pushed the AMQ-7072_jsonb-instead-of-jackson branch 3 times, most recently from 880b41d to b68bc5e Compare October 14, 2018 13:26
@rmannibucau rmannibucau changed the title [WIP][AMQ-7072] moving to JSON-B API instead of jackson [AMQ-7072] moving to JSON-B API instead of jackson Oct 14, 2018
@rmannibucau rmannibucau force-pushed the AMQ-7072_jsonb-instead-of-jackson branch from b68bc5e to a87903e Compare October 14, 2018 13:31
@jbonofre
Copy link
Member

R: @jbonofre

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member

Johnzon is fine using jsonb. I've started the review and rebase anyway.

@rmannibucau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Overall the goal is to enable to use json-b and use the json-b contract (ie neither johnzon nor jackson must appear in compile scope in theory - until it is to be transitive but I'm speaking on a pure build perspective). I assume it should be tested with both impl - and maybe yasson - to ensure some portability - at least manually for the first round.
After the question of the default in the distro can be discussed. The least changing is jackson but the most apache is johnzon and for AMQ it should be very close once fully migrated to json-b api so at the end I'd say 50-50 ;).

@jeanouii jeanouii force-pushed the AMQ-7072_jsonb-instead-of-jackson branch from a87903e to 5893591 Compare May 17, 2023 18:32
@mattrpav
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should do this in 5.19.x and go straight to Jakarta.

I don’t think it makes sense changing out a bunch of dependencies right before a major uplift to Jakarta.

The Jakarta works is ~80% done or so, so I don’t think it will be too long of a delay.

@rmannibucau
Copy link
Contributor Author

+1 and maybe jsonp only to limit deps

@jeanouii
Copy link
Contributor

@mattrpav I'm fine with it. I'll wait till we have a jakarta ready version for 5.19.x and rebase so I can update the dependencies and the imports.

Or I can rebase on your branch #996, but probably too early

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member

Agree for 5.19.x, I don't want to include this change in 5.18.x. I would keep this PR as it is, waiting 5.19.x update done.

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member

Closing as non active. Please reopen a new one if needed.

@jbonofre jbonofre closed this Oct 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants