+1 JSON-B using Jackson and targeting 5.17.x Given the popularity of pairing ActiveMQ w/ Camel and CXF, I think staying with Jackson is a good idea and would cause less volatility.
> On Jan 28, 2021, at 5:36 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Clearly +1 for me to go using JSON-B. > > However, I will focus this for 5.17.x. I’m working on cleanup, update, etc > for this version, so I think it’s the good timing to use JSON-B. > > So, +1 to use master (5.17.x) for that. If you can wait a bit, I can merge > the first round cleanup (removing leveled, etc). > Else, go ahead, we will rebase. > > My +1 > > Regards > JB > >> Le 28 janv. 2021 à 11:34, Jonathan Gallimore <jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> >> a écrit : >> >> Hi All >> >> Just to introduce myself a little, I am one of the contributors to Apache >> TomEE, and we have been embedding ActiveMQ 5 for some time, and have found >> it a really nice solution, in particular enabling users to work with JMS >> with almost no setup. >> >> We do have a desire to slim down our dependencies, and I would like to >> propose that ActiveMQ potentially use JSON-B as opposed to being tightly >> coupled to one specific JSON parsing library. >> >> This has previously been discussed on >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ/issues/AMQ-7072, and it sounded >> like the community was open to using JSON-B, but would strongly want to >> stick with Jackson as the default serializer. >> >> I'd like to have a go at working on this. If I was able to make the change >> to use JSON-B, (and I appreciate that may need work here (which I'm also ok >> to contribute to): >> https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-future-ideas/issues/19. If I could do >> this, and keep Jackson as the default serializer, would this be a >> contribution that the community could consider? >> >> Many thanks >> >> Jon >
