[keycloak-dev] can we ditch org.json?

[Anil Saldhana]

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 at redhat.com>
>>> To: keycloak-dev at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: keycloak-dev at 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>