You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wink.apache.org by Nicholas L Gallardo <nl...@us.ibm.com> on 2010/10/08 15:36:12 UTC
A new JSON model
Today, developers are able to model JSON content using a number of object
forms. In Wink, the two most common forms are a) creating/modeling JSON
via Jackson and Java beans, and b) creating/model via the APIs in the
json.org library. The former stands as is without issue. From a technical
standpoint, the latter is a fine solution, but the license of the json.org
library is not something that several Wink consumers are unwilling to
accept.
As a solution, I'd like to contribute a similar library called JSON4J and
have that included as a separate module within Wink. This code has existed
for a few years now within IBM and provides a similar model to what the
json.org library includes. The API is simple and based on standard Java
collection APIs. Specific APIs exist for JSON objects, arrays, strings
along with utility classes for converting to/from XML.
The APIs have been abstracted from the original JSON4J implementation to
provide the greatest level of compatibility with existing json.org
signatures. As such, the end goal is to provide a package for which
migration is as close as simple package rename as possible.
I will be creating a JIRA with a patch that includes the classes and
available unit tests. I'd like to request the community's input on the
desire for this type of package. My view would be to have this be included
as a separate Maven module under the base tree.
-Nick
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 8, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Nicholas Gallardo wrote:
> Thanks Mike. Agreed on what's needed to make this a separate project.
>
> Mentors, can we release a separate module from our existing project to
> streamline this and keep it separate from the Wink runtime release cycle?
Yes, a podling can release multiple artifacts.
"Streamlining" an incubation process is not a good reason for releasing this from Wink, however.
On the other hand, if the Wink community feels that this is a technical area which they want to be working on and feel this work falls within the scope of the Wink project (or want to define the scope of the Wink project to include JSON4J), then that seems like a good thing.
--kevan
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
I'd let the dust settle down...when is the next release BTW? Please make sure you fill up a software grant as well.
thanks,
dims
On 10/08/2010 11:45 AM, Nicholas Gallardo wrote:
> Thanks Mike. Agreed on what's needed to make this a separate project.
>
> Mentors, can we release a separate module from our existing project to
> streamline this and keep it separate from the Wink runtime release cycle?
>
> -Nick
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mike Rheinheimer<ro...@apache.org>
> To: wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, October 8, 2010 10:36:09 AM
> Subject: Re: A new JSON model
>
> Thanks for your encouragement, Han.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not so simple to create a new standalone project in
> Apache and push a release of a new project through the system. That is, at
> a very minimum, probaby two months of work, which asssumes all of the Apache
> mentors are in place and approvals occur as efficiently as possible. A good
> end goal for JSON4J would be to eventually become a standalone project, but
> there has to be some traction (good usage, good community involvement, lots
> of interest, mentors, Apache incubator PMC +1 votes, lots of process and
> proposals) just to become a podling (incubator project), must less get a
> real release out the door.
>
> Your interest and regular involvement in Wink will certainly help with that,
> and we welcome it!
>
> Thanks,
> mike
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Han Nguyen<ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1 We have the same json.org license issue with Apache Shindig. This
>> library
>> would be a great replacement and it'd be even better if the library can be
>> a
>> standalone in Apache outside of WINK. Could you please make the jar a full
>> release (e.g. not SNAPSHOT) since it is a requirement for Shindig to
>> consume
>> the library.
>> Thank you very much!!!
>> Han
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://apache-wink-dev.3470905.n2.nabble.com/A-new-JSON-model-tp5614930p5615278.html
>> l
>> Sent from the Apache Wink Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Nicholas Gallardo <ni...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks Mike. Agreed on what's needed to make this a separate project.
Mentors, can we release a separate module from our existing project to
streamline this and keep it separate from the Wink runtime release cycle?
-Nick
----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@apache.org>
To: wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, October 8, 2010 10:36:09 AM
Subject: Re: A new JSON model
Thanks for your encouragement, Han.
Unfortunately, it's not so simple to create a new standalone project in
Apache and push a release of a new project through the system. That is, at
a very minimum, probaby two months of work, which asssumes all of the Apache
mentors are in place and approvals occur as efficiently as possible. A good
end goal for JSON4J would be to eventually become a standalone project, but
there has to be some traction (good usage, good community involvement, lots
of interest, mentors, Apache incubator PMC +1 votes, lots of process and
proposals) just to become a podling (incubator project), must less get a
real release out the door.
Your interest and regular involvement in Wink will certainly help with that,
and we welcome it!
Thanks,
mike
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Han Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 We have the same json.org license issue with Apache Shindig. This
> library
> would be a great replacement and it'd be even better if the library can be
> a
> standalone in Apache outside of WINK. Could you please make the jar a full
> release (e.g. not SNAPSHOT) since it is a requirement for Shindig to
> consume
> the library.
> Thank you very much!!!
> Han
> --
> View this message in context:
>http://apache-wink-dev.3470905.n2.nabble.com/A-new-JSON-model-tp5614930p5615278.html
>l
> Sent from the Apache Wink Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@apache.org>.
Thanks for your encouragement, Han.
Unfortunately, it's not so simple to create a new standalone project in
Apache and push a release of a new project through the system. That is, at
a very minimum, probaby two months of work, which asssumes all of the Apache
mentors are in place and approvals occur as efficiently as possible. A good
end goal for JSON4J would be to eventually become a standalone project, but
there has to be some traction (good usage, good community involvement, lots
of interest, mentors, Apache incubator PMC +1 votes, lots of process and
proposals) just to become a podling (incubator project), must less get a
real release out the door.
Your interest and regular involvement in Wink will certainly help with that,
and we welcome it!
Thanks,
mike
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Han Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 We have the same json.org license issue with Apache Shindig. This
> library
> would be a great replacement and it'd be even better if the library can be
> a
> standalone in Apache outside of WINK. Could you please make the jar a full
> release (e.g. not SNAPSHOT) since it is a requirement for Shindig to
> consume
> the library.
> Thank you very much!!!
> Han
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-wink-dev.3470905.n2.nabble.com/A-new-JSON-model-tp5614930p5615278.html
> Sent from the Apache Wink Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Han Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com>.
+1 We have the same json.org license issue with Apache Shindig. This library
would be a great replacement and it'd be even better if the library can be a
standalone in Apache outside of WINK. Could you please make the jar a full
release (e.g. not SNAPSHOT) since it is a requirement for Shindig to consume
the library.
Thank you very much!!!
Han
--
View this message in context: http://apache-wink-dev.3470905.n2.nabble.com/A-new-JSON-model-tp5614930p5615278.html
Sent from the Apache Wink Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@apache.org>.
You've got my +1 too. I'd like to see it exactly as you've both outlined.
Thanks.
mike
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo <nl...@us.ibm.com>wrote:
> Dims, that's exactly what I was thinking. Lets incubate it here and then
> push it out once it's picked up some traction.
>
>
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Davanum Srinivas ---10/08/2010 08:40:53
> AM---+1 from me Nick. Once people start using it and want to]Davanum
> Srinivas ---10/08/2010 08:40:53 AM---+1 from me Nick. Once people start
> using it and want to use it outside of Wink, they can just use the stand
> alone jar.
>
>
> *Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>*
>
> 10/08/2010 08:40 AM
> Please respond to
> wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> To
>
> wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
> cc
>
>
> Subject
>
> Re: A new JSON model
>
> +1 from me Nick. Once people start using it and want to use it outside of
> Wink, they can just use the stand alone jar.
> If there is more traction, we can even move it to a separate ASF project if
> needed.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 10/08/2010 09:36 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Today, developers are able to model JSON content using a number of object
> > forms. In Wink, the two most common forms are a) creating/modeling JSON
> > via Jackson and Java beans, and b) creating/model via the APIs in the
> > json.org library. The former stands as is without issue. From a
> technical
> > standpoint, the latter is a fine solution, but the license of the
> json.org
> > library is not something that several Wink consumers are unwilling to
> > accept.
> >
> > As a solution, I'd like to contribute a similar library called JSON4J and
> > have that included as a separate module within Wink. This code has
> existed
> > for a few years now within IBM and provides a similar model to what the
> > json.org library includes. The API is simple and based on standard Java
> > collection APIs. Specific APIs exist for JSON objects, arrays, strings
> > along with utility classes for converting to/from XML.
> >
> > The APIs have been abstracted from the original JSON4J implementation to
> > provide the greatest level of compatibility with existing json.org
> > signatures. As such, the end goal is to provide a package for which
> > migration is as close as simple package rename as possible.
> >
> > I will be creating a JIRA with a patch that includes the classes and
> > available unit tests. I'd like to request the community's input on the
> > desire for this type of package. My view would be to have this be
> included
> > as a separate Maven module under the base tree.
> >
> > -Nick
>
>
>
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Nicholas L Gallardo <nl...@us.ibm.com>.
Dims, that's exactly what I was thinking. Lets incubate it here and then
push it out once it's picked up some traction.
Davanum Srinivas
<davanum@gmail.co
m> To
wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
10/08/2010 08:40 cc
AM
Subject
Re: A new JSON model
Please respond to
wink-dev@incubato
r.apache.org
+1 from me Nick. Once people start using it and want to use it outside of
Wink, they can just use the stand alone jar.
If there is more traction, we can even move it to a separate ASF project if
needed.
thanks,
dims
On 10/08/2010 09:36 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote:
>
>
> Today, developers are able to model JSON content using a number of object
> forms. In Wink, the two most common forms are a) creating/modeling JSON
> via Jackson and Java beans, and b) creating/model via the APIs in the
> json.org library. The former stands as is without issue. From a
technical
> standpoint, the latter is a fine solution, but the license of the
json.org
> library is not something that several Wink consumers are unwilling to
> accept.
>
> As a solution, I'd like to contribute a similar library called JSON4J and
> have that included as a separate module within Wink. This code has
existed
> for a few years now within IBM and provides a similar model to what the
> json.org library includes. The API is simple and based on standard Java
> collection APIs. Specific APIs exist for JSON objects, arrays, strings
> along with utility classes for converting to/from XML.
>
> The APIs have been abstracted from the original JSON4J implementation to
> provide the greatest level of compatibility with existing json.org
> signatures. As such, the end goal is to provide a package for which
> migration is as close as simple package rename as possible.
>
> I will be creating a JIRA with a patch that includes the classes and
> available unit tests. I'd like to request the community's input on the
> desire for this type of package. My view would be to have this be
included
> as a separate Maven module under the base tree.
>
> -Nick
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me Nick. Once people start using it and want to use it outside of Wink, they can just use the stand alone jar.
If there is more traction, we can even move it to a separate ASF project if needed.
thanks,
dims
On 10/08/2010 09:36 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote:
>
>
> Today, developers are able to model JSON content using a number of object
> forms. In Wink, the two most common forms are a) creating/modeling JSON
> via Jackson and Java beans, and b) creating/model via the APIs in the
> json.org library. The former stands as is without issue. From a technical
> standpoint, the latter is a fine solution, but the license of the json.org
> library is not something that several Wink consumers are unwilling to
> accept.
>
> As a solution, I'd like to contribute a similar library called JSON4J and
> have that included as a separate module within Wink. This code has existed
> for a few years now within IBM and provides a similar model to what the
> json.org library includes. The API is simple and based on standard Java
> collection APIs. Specific APIs exist for JSON objects, arrays, strings
> along with utility classes for converting to/from XML.
>
> The APIs have been abstracted from the original JSON4J implementation to
> provide the greatest level of compatibility with existing json.org
> signatures. As such, the end goal is to provide a package for which
> migration is as close as simple package rename as possible.
>
> I will be creating a JIRA with a patch that includes the classes and
> available unit tests. I'd like to request the community's input on the
> desire for this type of package. My view would be to have this be included
> as a separate Maven module under the base tree.
>
> -Nick
Re: A new JSON model
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Wow, thats finally getting opened up... ;-)
--jason
On Oct 8, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote:
>
>
> Today, developers are able to model JSON content using a number of object
> forms. In Wink, the two most common forms are a) creating/modeling JSON
> via Jackson and Java beans, and b) creating/model via the APIs in the
> json.org library. The former stands as is without issue. From a technical
> standpoint, the latter is a fine solution, but the license of the json.org
> library is not something that several Wink consumers are unwilling to
> accept.
>
> As a solution, I'd like to contribute a similar library called JSON4J and
> have that included as a separate module within Wink. This code has existed
> for a few years now within IBM and provides a similar model to what the
> json.org library includes. The API is simple and based on standard Java
> collection APIs. Specific APIs exist for JSON objects, arrays, strings
> along with utility classes for converting to/from XML.
>
> The APIs have been abstracted from the original JSON4J implementation to
> provide the greatest level of compatibility with existing json.org
> signatures. As such, the end goal is to provide a package for which
> migration is as close as simple package rename as possible.
>
> I will be creating a JIRA with a patch that includes the classes and
> available unit tests. I'd like to request the community's input on the
> desire for this type of package. My view would be to have this be included
> as a separate Maven module under the base tree.
>
> -Nick