FYI https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2233
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 18:17, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>
