looks good 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 lun. 13 août 2018 à 18:13, Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> a écrit : > I’ve added a couple of more tests. Let me know if you are looking for > something in particular. > > > On 10 Aug 2018, at 20:36, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > sonds good but should probably be more unit tested (@JohnzonProperty > > typically) to be covered since it is not a real official feature > > > > Le 10 août 2018 19:14, "Roberto Cortez" <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> a > > écrit : > > > > I had a look and I think that work is already done. If you look closely > to > > JsonbAccessMode, it already delegates to the FieldAndMethodAccessMode > from > > Johnzon, or uses the one defined in the johnzon.accessModeDelegate > > property. I think there is only one thing missing, which is, the > > JsonbAccessMode when checking visibilities, does not take into account > > fields or methods annotated with Johnzon annotations. I’ve added a custom > > PropertyVisibilityStrategy to look into the Johnzon stuff, and then the > > delegate will handle the rest I believe. > > > > I’ve created a JIRA for it and updated the PR: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221> > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142 < > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142> > > > > Cheers, > > Roberto > > > > > >> On 8 Aug 2018, at 21:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> 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 > >>> > >>> > >
