Hi Are there any thoughts on this (even if its a hard no, or a different view on how it might be implemented)?
Thanks Jon On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:25 AM Jonathan Gallimore < jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > When I originally posted, my hope was that Jackson might be able to > implement JSON-B itself. Almost a year on, that feels like it would still > be my favourite approach, but is possibly not realistic. Would the > community be open to an abstraction in ActiveMQ allowing either Jackson, or > a JSON-B implementation to be used? > > I'm thinking along the lines of JAX-RS' MessageBodyReader / > MessageBodyWriter - this could be interesting as there has been a proposal > to use it for handling JSON-based messages in Jakarta Messaging: > https://github.com/jakartaee/messaging-proposals/tree/master/jsonb-messages/proposal1 > > The thought here would be to have two implementations of > MessageBodyReader/MessageBodyWriter (one for Jackson - the default), one > that delegates to JSON-B), and use whichever is configured. It looks like > there are a few places we'd need to do this: > > * DestinationsViewFilter > * PartitionBrokerPlugin > * ZooKeeperPartitionBroker > * Partition & Target classes > * PersistenceAdapterView > > Does that list sound right, or is there functionality I'm missing in that > list? Does the abstraction sound reasonable, or would you not be in favor? > > Thanks > > Jon > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:38 AM Jonathan Gallimore < > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback - I'll look at this targeting 5.17! >> >> Jon >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:32 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +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 >>> > >>> >>>
