MP doesnt require it yet - will in 2.0 pby. Issue we have is to know you use jsonb. That said, thinking out loud tomee can impl a johnzon accessmode merging jsonb and native model which would solve most of it with a few tomee glue code in tomee cxf rs listener for priorities.
Sounds the best compromise and makes everyone happy. Le mer. 8 août 2018 21:38, Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> a écrit : > I think we should push to include a MP compatible version as well. > Right now, all other major vendors have compatible distributions and we > are sitting at zero. > The JsonbProvider is an issue both for the EE8 and MP stuff. I'm fine that > we are not TCK compliant. On the other hand, this would be the behaviour I > would expect if I'm using JAX-RS and JSON-B, which we are shipping, so I > think we should not ignore it. > Cheers,Roberto > On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 2:32:22 PM GMT+1, Matthew Broadhead < > matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID> wrote: > > A +1 > > On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release? > > Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally. > > > > We just have to be clear about how we name that baby. > > So far we have 2 options on the table: > > > > A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address > JavaEE8 but are not certified. > > Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it. > > > > B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8 > TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any > proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not > >> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and > >> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very > core of > >> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that. > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >> < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > >> > >> > >> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> > a > >> écrit : > >> > >>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old > >>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs? > >>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new. > >>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false. > >>> On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the > side > >>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it. > >>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure > it > >>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is > the > >>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was > set > >>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so). > >>> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >>> < > >>> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >>> > >>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez > <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> > >>> a > >>> écrit : > >>> > >>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the > >>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for > >>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and > >>> have > >>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional > >>> configuration. > >>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the > Jsonb > >>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not > fallback to > >>>> the TomEE 7 one? On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, > Romain > >>>> Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step. > >>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some > users > >>>> :(. > >>>> > >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >>>> < > >>>> > >>> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >>>> > >>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez > <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid > >>>> > >>>> a > >>>> écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> I understand. > >>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with > the > >>> MP > >>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied > due > >>>> to > >>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe > this > >>>>> should be the default behaviour. > >>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup > the > >>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers? > >>>>> On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau > < > >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Roberto, > >>>>> > >>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time > >>> (both > >>>>> will conflict). > >>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of > >>> TomEE > >>>> 7 > >>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old > behavior > >>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs > >>>> mapper > >>>>> page. > >>>>> > >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >>>>> < > >>>>> > >>> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >>>>> > >>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez > >>> <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid > >>>>> a > >>>>> écrit : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider > to > >>>> the > >>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it > >>>> was > >>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE > >>> 8. > >>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add > >>> the > >>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the > >>>> providers > >>>>>> list. > >>>>>> Cheers,Roberto > >
