[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1126?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16673544#comment-16673544
 ] 

Daniel Kulp commented on AVRO-1126:
-----------------------------------

Actually, flipping to javax.json will be a HUGE disruption to pretty much 
everyone.   Just updating to Jackson 2.9.7 is mostly a search/replace exercise 
for package names and "getIntValue()" -> "intValue()".   Thus, I think just 
updating to 2.9.7 is likely a better option for users.   It's a significantly 
easier update.   


> Upgrade to Jackson 2+
> ---------------------
>
>                 Key: AVRO-1126
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1126
>             Project: Avro
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: java
>            Reporter: James Tyrrell
>            Assignee: Charles Honton
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 1.9.0
>
>
> Quite annoyingly with Jackson 2+ the base package name has changed from 
> org.codehaus.jackson to com.fasterxml.jackson so in addition to changing the 
> dependencies from:
> {code:xml} 
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>org.codehaus.jackson</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jackson-core-asl</artifactId>
>     <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>org.codehaus.jackson</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jackson-mapper-asl</artifactId>
>     <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> {code} 
> to:
> {code:xml} 
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jackson-core</artifactId>
>     <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jackson-databind</artifactId>
>     <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> {code} 
> the base package in the code needs to be updated. More info can be found 
> [here|http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonUpgradeFrom19To20], I am happy to do 
> the work just let me know what is preferable i.e. should I just attach a 
> patch to this issue?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to