Hi Sergey, Thanks for the feedback. I need JSON schema for client GUI which can render service interface based on this json schema, the json schema is very convenient for interface view. That's why I introduce the jackson dependency which can get json schema for a given class neatly.
Cheers －－－－－－－－－－－－－ Freeman(Yue) Fang Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat On 2014-4-3, at 下午5:43, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Hi Freeman > > Why do you need JSON schema for it ? > I don't think it is realistic to expect XMLSchema document can be mapped 1 to > 1 to a corresponding JSON schema. > > Cheers, Sergey > > On 03/04/14 02:57, Freeman Fang wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> Is there any neat way we can get Json schema from XmlSchema? >> >> Thanks >> －－－－－－－－－－－－－ >> Freeman(Yue) Fang >> >> Red Hat, Inc. >> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat >> >> >> >> On 2014-4-3, at 上午9:08, Daniel Kulp wrote: >> >>> >>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Freeman Fang <freeman.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>> How about we move those new "JMX" operations to rt/management module so >>>> that we won't introduce jackson dependency for core? >>>> >>> >>> Doesn’t matter where it is… there is no reason for the Jackson dependency >>> for this at all. >>> >>> On the soap side, do NOT use the messagePartInfo.getType() method. As >>> soon as you do that, you will get my -1 as that won’t work. You have to >>> use the XmlSchema types. Likely the same of the JAX-RS side. One you >>> use the XmlSchema stuff we have, most of the introspection code here goes >>> away and isn’t needed. >>> >>> The jsonToXml(String jsonText, String pojoType) needs to go away as well. >>> Again, that is ONLY going to work with JAXB. You may be able to mimic >>> that via the Databinding object, not sure. >>> >>> Basically, I’m OK with this staying in core as long as the implementation >>> is completely redone to be completely based on the XmlSchema that we >>> already have generated. >>> >>> Dan >>>
