I meant if it is possible to reuse the JAXB annotations to (de)serialize JSON
On Tuesday, 1 April 2014, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Matt Sicker > <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > wrote: > >> With the existing JAXB annotations, do you think a compatible JSON file >> could be generated? >> > > No. Because it is not enough to annotate, you need custom un/marshallers. > > >> Minus namespaces of course (or even with namespaces by prepending them to >> keys). I might tinker with that later to see. Could get a structured text >> sort of API going out of it. >> > > This is what I have working now locally: > - XML unmarshalling (or "deserializing" in Jackson parlance) with JAXB. > - Unit tests for UDP and TCP passing > - Reworked the frameworf to neatly account for Serialization, XML and JSON. > > My next step is to make the same changes I did with JAXB but with JSON. > > Then I'll have JSON unmarshalling working. > > Then I can see if I can unmarshal from XML using JSON. If that works, I > can remove the JAXB annotations. > > Next would be to replace all the custom code in the XML and JSON layouts > with Jackson (almost) one liners. > > Gary > > > > On 1 April 2014 11:03, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh good catch. Maybe in JDK9 they'll put JSON in there. > > > One can only hope... but I do marvel at the lack of vision though, how can > this not be a tweak on top of JAXB? > > Gary > > > > > On 1 April 2014 07:39, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK, I've looked at EJ item #78, JAXB and Jackson a little more. Initially, > it looks like #78 is specific to Java Serializable objects but the pattern > should also apply to other "extralinguistic mechanisms" for marshalling. > I'll go back and see my JAXB implementation can be made cleaner... > > Gary > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would use Jackson for JSON since we already use it. I don't recall that > we use an XML serializer anywhere else so I would stick with either JAXB or > Jackson since they don't introduce any new dependencies. > > Ralph > > On Mar 31, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Ralph Goers > <[email protected]>wrote: > > Jackson will do both the JSON and XML if you want. If you can manage to > use the Proxy I think that would be better. > > Ralph > > So the options are: > > - JRE JAXB can do XML but not JSON > - Eclipse JAXB ("MOXy") can do XML and JSON > - Jackson can do both XML and JSON > > Because we already depend on Jackson it sounds like I should use that > instead of JAXB. > > Thoughts? > > Gary > > On Mar 31, 2014, at 7:04 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Ralph Goers > <[email protected]>wrote: > > Out of curiosity, why does implementing an XML socket server require > touching the LogEvent? What are XMLLogEventI > > > > > -- > E-Mail: > [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>| > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second > Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
