You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomee.apache.org by COURTAULT Francois <Fr...@gemalto.com> on 2017/04/03 10:37:06 UTC
RE: [+SPAM+]: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
Hello Romain,
"This is super constrained and prevent the usage of PUT/PATCH with partial mapping so I would enable it with a flag in JsonbConfig but wouldnt use it as a default."
Understood and I agree.
Regarding Bean Validation, I have asked myself how it will be used to perform this king of checking.
Coming back to my initial test, with Johnzon, on the server side, the expected payload has its single field annotated with @NotNull and even with this constraint, the server sends me back a 200 OK with empty content: is it normal ? Is it a TomEE issue ?
Best Regards.
-----Original Message-----
From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 12:22
To: users@tomee.apache.org
Subject: [+SPAM+]: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
2017-04-03 12:18 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
Francois.Courtault@gemalto.com>:
> Hello Romain,
>
> I agree with you about report.
> What does "report" mean ? Is it a log ? Is it an error/exception
> returned back to the client ?
>
> About "Do you want to report it to the spec?": my answer is yes.
> I would be pleased this point to be clarified by the spec as it is
> ambiguous according to me !
>
> My point would be during deserialization:
> - to have all the fields, not annotated by JsonbTransient,
> mandatory for the Entity expected and so if one of them is missing,
> sending back an error to the
> caller (4xx better than 500).
>
This is super constrained and prevent the usage of PUT/PATCH with partial mapping so I would enable it with a flag in JsonbConfig but wouldnt use it as a default.
> - to follow the Must-Ignore policy (eg if there are additional
> data in the Entity: others than the ones expected are there)
>
Probably same comment there.
Note that enforcing all fields to be there is very doable with bean validation and since JAXRS and bean validation are integrated it is maybe a false issue?
>
> Make sense ?
>
> Just my 2 cents ...
>
> Best Regards.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 11:09
> To: users@tomee.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
>
> 2017-04-03 11:06 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
> Francois.Courtault@gemalto.com>:
>
> > Hello Romain,
> >
> > I believe I have understood that "JSON serialization is NOT in EE 7".
> > This is why I said: " the behavior of the readFrom is not really
> described"
> > in JAX-RS 2.0.
> >
> > BTW, I have read some parts of the current JSON-B specification and,
> > according to me, this is not quite clear (eg the spec is ambiguous)
> > Indeed:
> > - in § 3.2, it is stated " Implementations SHOULD also report
> > an error during a deserialization operation, if it is not possible
> > to represent a JSON document value with the expected Java type."
> > - in § 3.7.1, it is stated "If a JSON document contains a
> > name/value pair not corresponding to field or setter method, then
> > this name/value pair MUST be ignored. "
> >
> > So, according to what it is written above, what is the right behavior ?
> > - report an error because it is not possible to "represent a
> > JSON document value with the expected Java type" during deserialization ?
> > - to ignore a JSON name/value pair if this one doesn't
> > correspond to a field or setter method ?
> >
> >
> ignore, reporting can be a log statement or anything (but being
> undefined it wouldnt be tested so right this first quote is useless
> for now). Do you want to report it to the spec? Guess it will just
> clarify it before the final release (likely remove it since a log by
> error would mean always logging an error which would pollute logs or
> it would mean logging first error which is not that useful IMO)
>
>
> > Best Regards.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 09:49
> > To: users@tomee.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
> >
> > Hmm, not sure I 100% understand so if my next comment is inaccurate
> > please shout (also not capitals are not cause i'm angry or anything,
> > just to highlight the word ;)):
> >
> > JAX-RS is NOT about JSON or XML but about a way to serialize a
> > payload to some format. JAX-RS supports JSON, XML, binary protocols
> > etc... so it doesn't own anything but a word saying "we integrate
> > with this other
> spec".
> > An example on another layer is: it doesn't define how bean
> > validation works but only that it works on some JAX-RS components/parts.
> >
> > The JSON serialization is NOT in EE 7 and therefore fully vendor
> > specific for now.
> >
> > JSON-B default is to ignore unknown fields (as in I-JSON spec IIRC)
> > whereas Jackson chose to fail on them. Both defaults can make sense
> > so I guess you just have to know which one you use and adapt.
> >
> > Agree that JSON-B/Johnzon one makes more sense when you use a js
> > front which can leak some attributes ;).
> >
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <
> > https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog <
> > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > <https://github.com/rmannibucau>
> > | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE
> > | Factory <
> > https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
> >
> > 2017-04-03 9:45 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <Francois.Courtault@gemalto.
> > com
> > >:
> >
> > > Hello Romain,
> > >
> > > I have read the specification and I haven't seen what you have
> > mentioned.
> > > In §4.2.1: Message Body Reader, point 5, it is written:
> > > "If step 4 locates a suitable MessageBodyReader then use its
> > > readFrom method to map the entity body to the desired Java type."
> > >
> > > But the behavior of the readFrom is not really described.
> > > I hope it will be clarified in JAX-RS 2.1 specification with
> > > JSON-B
> ....
> > >
> > > Best Regards.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 09:02
> > > To: users@tomee.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
> > >
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > 2017-04-03 9:00 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois
> <Francois.Courtault@gemalto.
> > > com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I have written a simple JAX-RS endpoint (POST) which takes an
> > > > object which contain one String field annotated @NotNull.
> > > > The POST method returns the object received.
> > > >
> > > > Then I invoke this endpoint:
> > > >
> > > > - Johnzon:
> > > >
> > > > o If I send a payload with one field which doesn't match the field
> > name
> > > > of the Class defined at server side: I get a 200 OK and a
> > > > returned payload empty
> > > >
> > > > o If I send a payload with 2 fields whether the second one is
> > valuated
> > > > or not: I get a 200 OK and a returned payload empty
> > > >
> > > > - Jackson:
> > > >
> > > > o If I send a payload with one field which doesn't match the field
> > name
> > > > of the Class defined at server side: I get a 500 KO with
> > > > UnrecognizedPropertyException
> > > >
> > > > o If I send a payload with 2 fields whether the second one is
> > valuated
> > > > or not: I get a 500 OK with UnrecognizedPropertyException
> > > >
> > > > What is the right behavior (Johnzon or Jackson) ? Is this
> > > > behavior defined in the JAX-RS 2.0 specification ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Right = none
> > > Defined in JAXRS = none (this is jsonp which is lower level, jsonb
> > > will be like johnzon but in EE 8 only)
> > >
> > > Note that you can customize jackson to ignore unknown fields and
> > > behave as johnzon, just different defaults
> > >
> > >
> > > > Best Regards.
> > > > ________________________________ This message and any
> > > > attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may
> > > > contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> > > > disclosure, either whole or partial, is
> prohibited.
> > > > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > > > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you
> > > > are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it
> > > > and notify the
> > > sender.
> > > > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > > > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable
> > > > for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> > > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> > > addressees and may contain confidential information. Any
> > > unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> > > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you
> > > are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it
> > > and notify the
> > sender.
> > > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> > > damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> > >
> > ________________________________
> > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> > addressees and may contain confidential information. Any
> > unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are
> > not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and
> > notify the
> sender.
> > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> > damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> >
> ________________________________
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized
> use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable
> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> damages caused by a transmitted virus.
>
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
RE: [+SPAM+]: Re: [+SPAM+]: Re: Not the same behaviour between
Johnzon and Jackson
Posted by COURTAULT Francois <Fr...@gemalto.com>.
Hello Romain,
Forget my last post, I forgot to add @Valid for my POJO, in the JAX-RS method signature.
With this annotation, I got a ConstraintViolationException.
So sorry...
Best Regards.
-----Original Message-----
From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 12:43
To: users@tomee.apache.org
Subject: [+SPAM+]: Re: [+SPAM+]: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
2017-04-03 12:37 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
Francois.Courtault@gemalto.com>:
> Hello Romain,
>
> "This is super constrained and prevent the usage of PUT/PATCH with
> partial mapping so I would enable it with a flag in JsonbConfig but
> wouldnt use it as a default."
> Understood and I agree.
>
> Regarding Bean Validation, I have asked myself how it will be used to
> perform this king of checking.
> Coming back to my initial test, with Johnzon, on the server side, the
> expected payload has its single field annotated with @NotNull and even
> with this constraint, the server sends me back a 200 OK with empty
> content: is it normal ? Is it a TomEE issue ?
>
>
If you have CDI did you add @ValidatedOnExecution?
> Best Regards.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 12:22
> To: users@tomee.apache.org
> Subject: [+SPAM+]: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and
> Jackson
>
> 2017-04-03 12:18 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
> Francois.Courtault@gemalto.com>:
>
> > Hello Romain,
> >
> > I agree with you about report.
> > What does "report" mean ? Is it a log ? Is it an error/exception
> > returned back to the client ?
> >
> > About "Do you want to report it to the spec?": my answer is yes.
> > I would be pleased this point to be clarified by the spec as it is
> > ambiguous according to me !
> >
> > My point would be during deserialization:
> > - to have all the fields, not annotated by JsonbTransient,
> > mandatory for the Entity expected and so if one of them is missing,
> > sending back an error to the
> > caller (4xx better than 500).
> >
>
> This is super constrained and prevent the usage of PUT/PATCH with
> partial mapping so I would enable it with a flag in JsonbConfig but
> wouldnt use it as a default.
>
>
> > - to follow the Must-Ignore policy (eg if there are additional
> > data in the Entity: others than the ones expected are there)
> >
>
> Probably same comment there.
>
>
> Note that enforcing all fields to be there is very doable with bean
> validation and since JAXRS and bean validation are integrated it is
> maybe a false issue?
>
>
> >
> > Make sense ?
> >
> > Just my 2 cents ...
> >
> > Best Regards.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 11:09
> > To: users@tomee.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
> >
> > 2017-04-03 11:06 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
> > Francois.Courtault@gemalto.com>:
> >
> > > Hello Romain,
> > >
> > > I believe I have understood that "JSON serialization is NOT in EE 7".
> > > This is why I said: " the behavior of the readFrom is not really
> > described"
> > > in JAX-RS 2.0.
> > >
> > > BTW, I have read some parts of the current JSON-B specification
> > > and, according to me, this is not quite clear (eg the spec is
> > > ambiguous)
> > > Indeed:
> > > - in § 3.2, it is stated " Implementations SHOULD also report
> > > an error during a deserialization operation, if it is not possible
> > > to represent a JSON document value with the expected Java type."
> > > - in § 3.7.1, it is stated "If a JSON document contains a
> > > name/value pair not corresponding to field or setter method, then
> > > this name/value pair MUST be ignored. "
> > >
> > > So, according to what it is written above, what is the right behavior ?
> > > - report an error because it is not possible to "represent a
> > > JSON document value with the expected Java type" during
> deserialization ?
> > > - to ignore a JSON name/value pair if this one doesn't
> > > correspond to a field or setter method ?
> > >
> > >
> > ignore, reporting can be a log statement or anything (but being
> > undefined it wouldnt be tested so right this first quote is useless
> > for now). Do you want to report it to the spec? Guess it will just
> > clarify it before the final release (likely remove it since a log by
> > error would mean always logging an error which would pollute logs or
> > it would mean logging first error which is not that useful IMO)
> >
> >
> > > Best Regards.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 09:49
> > > To: users@tomee.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
> > >
> > > Hmm, not sure I 100% understand so if my next comment is
> > > inaccurate please shout (also not capitals are not cause i'm angry
> > > or anything, just to highlight the word ;)):
> > >
> > > JAX-RS is NOT about JSON or XML but about a way to serialize a
> > > payload to some format. JAX-RS supports JSON, XML, binary
> > > protocols etc... so it doesn't own anything but a word saying "we
> > > integrate with this other
> > spec".
> > > An example on another layer is: it doesn't define how bean
> > > validation works but only that it works on some JAX-RS
> components/parts.
> > >
> > > The JSON serialization is NOT in EE 7 and therefore fully vendor
> > > specific for now.
> > >
> > > JSON-B default is to ignore unknown fields (as in I-JSON spec
> > > IIRC) whereas Jackson chose to fail on them. Both defaults can
> > > make sense so I guess you just have to know which one you use and adapt.
> > >
> > > Agree that JSON-B/Johnzon one makes more sense when you use a js
> > > front which can leak some attributes ;).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <
> > > https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog <
> > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau>
> > > | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE
> > > | Factory <
> > > https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
> > >
> > > 2017-04-03 9:45 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois
> <Francois.Courtault@gemalto.
> > > com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hello Romain,
> > > >
> > > > I have read the specification and I haven't seen what you have
> > > mentioned.
> > > > In §4.2.1: Message Body Reader, point 5, it is written:
> > > > "If step 4 locates a suitable MessageBodyReader then use its
> > > > readFrom method to map the entity body to the desired Java type."
> > > >
> > > > But the behavior of the readFrom is not really described.
> > > > I hope it will be clarified in JAX-RS 2.1 specification with
> > > > JSON-B
> > ....
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 09:02
> > > > To: users@tomee.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
> > > >
> > > > Hello
> > > >
> > > > 2017-04-03 9:00 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois
> > <Francois.Courtault@gemalto.
> > > > com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have written a simple JAX-RS endpoint (POST) which takes an
> > > > > object which contain one String field annotated @NotNull.
> > > > > The POST method returns the object received.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I invoke this endpoint:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Johnzon:
> > > > >
> > > > > o If I send a payload with one field which doesn't match the
> field
> > > name
> > > > > of the Class defined at server side: I get a 200 OK and a
> > > > > returned payload empty
> > > > >
> > > > > o If I send a payload with 2 fields whether the second one is
> > > valuated
> > > > > or not: I get a 200 OK and a returned payload empty
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jackson:
> > > > >
> > > > > o If I send a payload with one field which doesn't match the
> field
> > > name
> > > > > of the Class defined at server side: I get a 500 KO with
> > > > > UnrecognizedPropertyException
> > > > >
> > > > > o If I send a payload with 2 fields whether the second one is
> > > valuated
> > > > > or not: I get a 500 OK with UnrecognizedPropertyException
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the right behavior (Johnzon or Jackson) ? Is this
> > > > > behavior defined in the JAX-RS 2.0 specification ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Right = none
> > > > Defined in JAXRS = none (this is jsonp which is lower level,
> > > > jsonb will be like johnzon but in EE 8 only)
> > > >
> > > > Note that you can customize jackson to ignore unknown fields and
> > > > behave as johnzon, just different defaults
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Best Regards.
> > > > > ________________________________ This message and any
> > > > > attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may
> > > > > contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> > > > > disclosure, either whole or partial, is
> > prohibited.
> > > > > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not
> > > > > be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If
> > > > > you are not the intended recipient of this message, please
> > > > > delete it and notify the
> > > > sender.
> > > > > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > > > > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable
> > > > > for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> > > > >
> > > > ________________________________ This message and any
> > > > attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may
> > > > contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> > > > disclosure, either whole or partial, is
> prohibited.
> > > > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > > > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you
> > > > are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it
> > > > and notify the
> > > sender.
> > > > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > > > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable
> > > > for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> > > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> > > addressees and may contain confidential information. Any
> > > unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> > > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you
> > > are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it
> > > and notify the
> > sender.
> > > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> > > damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> > >
> > ________________________________
> > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> > addressees and may contain confidential information. Any
> > unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are
> > not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and
> > notify the
> sender.
> > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> > damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> >
> ________________________________
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized
> use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable
> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> damages caused by a transmitted virus.
>
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
Re: [+SPAM+]: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2017-04-03 12:37 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
Francois.Courtault@gemalto.com>:
> Hello Romain,
>
> "This is super constrained and prevent the usage of PUT/PATCH with partial
> mapping so I would enable it with a flag in JsonbConfig but wouldnt use it
> as a default."
> Understood and I agree.
>
> Regarding Bean Validation, I have asked myself how it will be used to
> perform this king of checking.
> Coming back to my initial test, with Johnzon, on the server side, the
> expected payload has its single field annotated with @NotNull and even with
> this constraint, the server sends me back a 200 OK with empty content: is
> it normal ? Is it a TomEE issue ?
>
>
If you have CDI did you add @ValidatedOnExecution?
> Best Regards.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 12:22
> To: users@tomee.apache.org
> Subject: [+SPAM+]: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
>
> 2017-04-03 12:18 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
> Francois.Courtault@gemalto.com>:
>
> > Hello Romain,
> >
> > I agree with you about report.
> > What does "report" mean ? Is it a log ? Is it an error/exception
> > returned back to the client ?
> >
> > About "Do you want to report it to the spec?": my answer is yes.
> > I would be pleased this point to be clarified by the spec as it is
> > ambiguous according to me !
> >
> > My point would be during deserialization:
> > - to have all the fields, not annotated by JsonbTransient,
> > mandatory for the Entity expected and so if one of them is missing,
> > sending back an error to the
> > caller (4xx better than 500).
> >
>
> This is super constrained and prevent the usage of PUT/PATCH with partial
> mapping so I would enable it with a flag in JsonbConfig but wouldnt use it
> as a default.
>
>
> > - to follow the Must-Ignore policy (eg if there are additional
> > data in the Entity: others than the ones expected are there)
> >
>
> Probably same comment there.
>
>
> Note that enforcing all fields to be there is very doable with bean
> validation and since JAXRS and bean validation are integrated it is maybe a
> false issue?
>
>
> >
> > Make sense ?
> >
> > Just my 2 cents ...
> >
> > Best Regards.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 11:09
> > To: users@tomee.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
> >
> > 2017-04-03 11:06 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois <
> > Francois.Courtault@gemalto.com>:
> >
> > > Hello Romain,
> > >
> > > I believe I have understood that "JSON serialization is NOT in EE 7".
> > > This is why I said: " the behavior of the readFrom is not really
> > described"
> > > in JAX-RS 2.0.
> > >
> > > BTW, I have read some parts of the current JSON-B specification and,
> > > according to me, this is not quite clear (eg the spec is ambiguous)
> > > Indeed:
> > > - in § 3.2, it is stated " Implementations SHOULD also report
> > > an error during a deserialization operation, if it is not possible
> > > to represent a JSON document value with the expected Java type."
> > > - in § 3.7.1, it is stated "If a JSON document contains a
> > > name/value pair not corresponding to field or setter method, then
> > > this name/value pair MUST be ignored. "
> > >
> > > So, according to what it is written above, what is the right behavior ?
> > > - report an error because it is not possible to "represent a
> > > JSON document value with the expected Java type" during
> deserialization ?
> > > - to ignore a JSON name/value pair if this one doesn't
> > > correspond to a field or setter method ?
> > >
> > >
> > ignore, reporting can be a log statement or anything (but being
> > undefined it wouldnt be tested so right this first quote is useless
> > for now). Do you want to report it to the spec? Guess it will just
> > clarify it before the final release (likely remove it since a log by
> > error would mean always logging an error which would pollute logs or
> > it would mean logging first error which is not that useful IMO)
> >
> >
> > > Best Regards.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 09:49
> > > To: users@tomee.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
> > >
> > > Hmm, not sure I 100% understand so if my next comment is inaccurate
> > > please shout (also not capitals are not cause i'm angry or anything,
> > > just to highlight the word ;)):
> > >
> > > JAX-RS is NOT about JSON or XML but about a way to serialize a
> > > payload to some format. JAX-RS supports JSON, XML, binary protocols
> > > etc... so it doesn't own anything but a word saying "we integrate
> > > with this other
> > spec".
> > > An example on another layer is: it doesn't define how bean
> > > validation works but only that it works on some JAX-RS
> components/parts.
> > >
> > > The JSON serialization is NOT in EE 7 and therefore fully vendor
> > > specific for now.
> > >
> > > JSON-B default is to ignore unknown fields (as in I-JSON spec IIRC)
> > > whereas Jackson chose to fail on them. Both defaults can make sense
> > > so I guess you just have to know which one you use and adapt.
> > >
> > > Agree that JSON-B/Johnzon one makes more sense when you use a js
> > > front which can leak some attributes ;).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <
> > > https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog <
> > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau>
> > > | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE
> > > | Factory <
> > > https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
> > >
> > > 2017-04-03 9:45 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois
> <Francois.Courtault@gemalto.
> > > com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hello Romain,
> > > >
> > > > I have read the specification and I haven't seen what you have
> > > mentioned.
> > > > In §4.2.1: Message Body Reader, point 5, it is written:
> > > > "If step 4 locates a suitable MessageBodyReader then use its
> > > > readFrom method to map the entity body to the desired Java type."
> > > >
> > > > But the behavior of the readFrom is not really described.
> > > > I hope it will be clarified in JAX-RS 2.1 specification with
> > > > JSON-B
> > ....
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: lundi 3 avril 2017 09:02
> > > > To: users@tomee.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Not the same behaviour between Johnzon and Jackson
> > > >
> > > > Hello
> > > >
> > > > 2017-04-03 9:00 GMT+02:00 COURTAULT Francois
> > <Francois.Courtault@gemalto.
> > > > com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have written a simple JAX-RS endpoint (POST) which takes an
> > > > > object which contain one String field annotated @NotNull.
> > > > > The POST method returns the object received.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I invoke this endpoint:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Johnzon:
> > > > >
> > > > > o If I send a payload with one field which doesn't match the
> field
> > > name
> > > > > of the Class defined at server side: I get a 200 OK and a
> > > > > returned payload empty
> > > > >
> > > > > o If I send a payload with 2 fields whether the second one is
> > > valuated
> > > > > or not: I get a 200 OK and a returned payload empty
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jackson:
> > > > >
> > > > > o If I send a payload with one field which doesn't match the
> field
> > > name
> > > > > of the Class defined at server side: I get a 500 KO with
> > > > > UnrecognizedPropertyException
> > > > >
> > > > > o If I send a payload with 2 fields whether the second one is
> > > valuated
> > > > > or not: I get a 500 OK with UnrecognizedPropertyException
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the right behavior (Johnzon or Jackson) ? Is this
> > > > > behavior defined in the JAX-RS 2.0 specification ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Right = none
> > > > Defined in JAXRS = none (this is jsonp which is lower level, jsonb
> > > > will be like johnzon but in EE 8 only)
> > > >
> > > > Note that you can customize jackson to ignore unknown fields and
> > > > behave as johnzon, just different defaults
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Best Regards.
> > > > > ________________________________ This message and any
> > > > > attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may
> > > > > contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> > > > > disclosure, either whole or partial, is
> > prohibited.
> > > > > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > > > > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you
> > > > > are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it
> > > > > and notify the
> > > > sender.
> > > > > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > > > > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable
> > > > > for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> > > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> > > > addressees and may contain confidential information. Any
> > > > unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is
> prohibited.
> > > > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > > > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you
> > > > are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it
> > > > and notify the
> > > sender.
> > > > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > > > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> > > > damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> > > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> > > addressees and may contain confidential information. Any
> > > unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> > > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
> > > liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are
> > > not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and
> > > notify the
> > sender.
> > > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> > > damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> > >
> > ________________________________
> > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> > addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized
> > use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable
> > for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the
> > intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the
> sender.
> > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
> > transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
> > damages caused by a transmitted virus.
> >
> ________________________________
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for
> the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission
> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a
> transmitted virus.
>