5:25 p.m.
Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
It will just be one less library that needs to go through productization.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
5:47 p.m.
Go for it!—
abstractj
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
It will just be one less library that needs to go through productization.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
3:45 a.m.
AFAIK it's only the social stuff that uses org.json, and it should be quick to switch
to Jackons.
I can sort it out
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com>
To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Monday, 5 May, 2014 11:25:58 PM
Subject: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
It will just be one less library that needs to go through productization.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
10:30 a.m.
Should we start looking at JSONP libraries?
My personal preference is Jackson too. But I see a lot of usage of
Jackson,Jettison,org.json, g-json in various OSS projects.
I wonder if the time to standardize on the json-p library has come.
On 05/05/2014 05:25 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
It will just be one less library that needs to go through productization.
10:36 a.m.
Do we need JSONP?
My assumption was that browsers we need to support (at least with the js adapter) have
CORS support.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2014 4:30:25 PM
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
Should we start looking at JSONP libraries?
My personal preference is Jackson too. But I see a lot of usage of
Jackson,Jettison,org.json, g-json in various OSS projects.
I wonder if the time to standardize on the json-p library has come.
On 05/05/2014 05:25 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
> Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
> Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
>
> It will just be one less library that needs to go through productization.
>
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
10:45 a.m.
Sorry for being cryptic.
I was referring to https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=353 (part of JavaEE 7)
I think this JSR was heavily influenced by Jackson.
JSONP as in JAXP. :)
On 05/06/2014 10:36 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
Do we need JSONP?
My assumption was that browsers we need to support (at least with the js adapter) have
CORS support.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2014 4:30:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
>
> Should we start looking at JSONP libraries?
>
> My personal preference is Jackson too. But I see a lot of usage of
> Jackson,Jettison,org.json, g-json in various OSS projects.
>
> I wonder if the time to standardize on the json-p library has come.
>
> On 05/05/2014 05:25 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>> Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
>> Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
>>
>> It will just be one less library that needs to go through productization.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
11:10 a.m.
That makes more sense ;)
"JSON-P" is an incredibly bad abbreviation considering JSONP is something
completely different.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2014 4:45:22 PM
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
Sorry for being cryptic.
I was referring to https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=353 (part of JavaEE 7)
I think this JSR was heavily influenced by Jackson.
JSONP as in JAXP. :)
On 05/06/2014 10:36 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> Do we need JSONP?
>
> My assumption was that browsers we need to support (at least with the js
> adapter) have CORS support.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
>> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2014 4:30:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
>>
>> Should we start looking at JSONP libraries?
>>
>> My personal preference is Jackson too. But I see a lot of usage of
>> Jackson,Jettison,org.json, g-json in various OSS projects.
>>
>> I wonder if the time to standardize on the json-p library has come.
>>
>> On 05/05/2014 05:25 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
>>> Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
>>>
>>> It will just be one less library that needs to go through productization.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
12:02 p.m.
Sticking with Jackson 1.9.x solely. Mainly because it's available in
AS7, EAP 6, and Wildfly. :) As you also probably already painfully
experienced Anil, org.json is now one less JAR that has to go through
productization.
On 5/6/2014 12:10 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
That makes more sense ;)
"JSON-P" is an incredibly bad abbreviation considering JSONP is something
completely different.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2014 4:45:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
>
> Sorry for being cryptic.
>
> I was referring to https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=353 (part of JavaEE 7)
>
> I think this JSR was heavily influenced by Jackson.
>
> JSONP as in JAXP. :)
>
>
> On 05/06/2014 10:36 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>> Do we need JSONP?
>>
>> My assumption was that browsers we need to support (at least with the js
>> adapter) have CORS support.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
>>> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2014 4:30:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
>>>
>>> Should we start looking at JSONP libraries?
>>>
>>> My personal preference is Jackson too. But I see a lot of usage of
>>> Jackson,Jettison,org.json, g-json in various OSS projects.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the time to standardize on the json-p library has come.
>>>
>>> On 05/05/2014 05:25 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
>>>> Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
>>>>
>>>> It will just be one less library that needs to go through
productization.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
12:17 p.m.
Bill - it makes perfect sense to use Jackson 1.9.x
Personally I am not a fan of using Jackson annotations in the JSON model
objects.
I try to keep my usage to the ObjectMapper level. But that is me. :)
On 05/06/2014 12:02 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
Sticking with Jackson 1.9.x solely. Mainly because it's
available in
AS7, EAP 6, and Wildfly. :) As you also probably already painfully
experienced Anil, org.json is now one less JAR that has to go through
productization.
On 5/6/2014 12:10 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> That makes more sense ;)
>
> "JSON-P" is an incredibly bad abbreviation considering JSONP is something
completely different.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
>> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2014 4:45:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
>>
>> Sorry for being cryptic.
>>
>> I was referring to https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=353 (part of JavaEE 7)
>>
>> I think this JSR was heavily influenced by Jackson.
>>
>> JSONP as in JAXP. :)
>>
>>
>> On 05/06/2014 10:36 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>> Do we need JSONP?
>>>
>>> My assumption was that browsers we need to support (at least with the js
>>> adapter) have CORS support.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com>
>>>> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2014 4:30:25 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?
>>>>
>>>> Should we start looking at JSONP libraries?
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference is Jackson too. But I see a lot of usage of
>>>> Jackson,Jettison,org.json, g-json in various OSS projects.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if the time to standardize on the json-p library has come.
>>>>
>>>> On 05/05/2014 05:25 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>> Would it be possible to ditch org.json and use Jackson instead?
>>>>> Specifically the JsonSerialization class?
>>>>>
>>>>> It will just be one less library that needs to go through
productization.
>>>>>
>>>>>
3891
days inactive
3892
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Anil Saldhana -
Bill Burke -
Bruno Oliveira -
Stian Thorgersen