You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2018/08/02 14:16:25 UTC

TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Hi,
I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to the default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it was just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE 8.
If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add the org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the providers list.
Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
would work, A then

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le mar. 7 août 2018 à 14:38, Alex The Rocker <al...@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Hello Mark,
>
> Non-binding:
> +1 for you proposal A) to release a TomEE 8.0.0 before Jakarta TCKs
> are available, and call the Jakarta Tc's-certified version a 8.1.x :
> simple and efficient !
>
> Thanks,
> Alexandre
> Le mar. 7 août 2018 à 14:33, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> a
> écrit :
> >
> > Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
> > Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
> >
> > We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
> > So far we have 2 options on the table:
> >
> > A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address
> JavaEE8 but are not certified.
> >  Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
> >
> > B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8
> TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any
> proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
> > > providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
> > > since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very
> core of
> > > TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez
> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > >> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
> > >> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
> > >> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
> > >> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
> > >>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the
> side
> > >> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
> > >> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not
> sure it
> > >> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is
> the
> > >> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it
> was set
> > >> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
> > >>
> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > >> <
> > >>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez
> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > >> a
> > >> écrit :
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
> > >>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
> > >>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
> > >> have
> > >>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
> > >> configuration.
> > >>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the
> Jsonb
> > >>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not
> fallback to
> > >>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
> Romain
> > >>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
> > >>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some
> users
> > >>> :(.
> > >>>
> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > >>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > >>> <
> > >>>
> > >>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> > >>>
> > >>> a
> > >>> écrit :
> > >>>
> > >>>> I understand.
> > >>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with
> the
> > >> MP
> > >>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied
> due
> > >>> to
> > >>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe
> this
> > >>>> should be the default behaviour.
> > >>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup
> the
> > >>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
> > >>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <
> > >>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Roberto,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
> > >> (both
> > >>>> will conflict).
> > >>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
> > >> TomEE
> > >>> 7
> > >>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old
> behavior
> > >>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
> > >>> mapper
> > >>>> page.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > >>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > >>>> <
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
> > >> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> > >>>>
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> écrit :
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider
> to
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project,
> it
> > >>> was
> > >>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
> > >> 8.
> > >>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
> > >> the
> > >>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
> > >>> providers
> > >>>>> list.
> > >>>>> Cheers,Roberto
> >
>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Alex The Rocker <al...@gmail.com>.
Hello Mark,

Non-binding:
+1 for you proposal A) to release a TomEE 8.0.0 before Jakarta TCKs
are available, and call the Jakarta Tc's-certified version a 8.1.x :
simple and efficient !

Thanks,
Alexandre
Le mar. 7 août 2018 à 14:33, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> a écrit :
>
> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>
> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>
> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address JavaEE8 but are not certified.
>  Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>
> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8 TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
> > providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
> > since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very core of
> > TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
> >> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
> >> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
> >> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
> >>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
> >> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
> >> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure it
> >> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
> >> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was set
> >> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >> <
> >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> >> a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
> >>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
> >>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
> >> have
> >>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
> >> configuration.
> >>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
> >>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback to
> >>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, Romain
> >>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
> >>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
> >>> :(.
> >>>
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>> <
> >>>
> >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >>>
> >>> a
> >>> écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> I understand.
> >>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the
> >> MP
> >>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due
> >>> to
> >>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
> >>>> should be the default behaviour.
> >>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
> >>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
> >>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Roberto,
> >>>>
> >>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
> >> (both
> >>>> will conflict).
> >>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
> >> TomEE
> >>> 7
> >>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
> >>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
> >>> mapper
> >>>> page.
> >>>>
> >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
> >> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >>>>
> >>>> a
> >>>> écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
> >>> the
> >>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
> >>> was
> >>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
> >> 8.
> >>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
> >> the
> >>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
> >>> providers
> >>>>> list.
> >>>>> Cheers,Roberto
>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
FYI https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2233

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le lun. 13 août 2018 à 18:17, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> looks good
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le lun. 13 août 2018 à 18:13, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a écrit :
>
>> I’ve added a couple of more tests. Let me know if you are looking for
>> something in particular.
>>
>> > On 10 Aug 2018, at 20:36, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > sonds good but should probably be more unit tested (@JohnzonProperty
>> > typically) to be covered since it is not a real official feature
>> >
>> > Le 10 août 2018 19:14, "Roberto Cortez" <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
>> > écrit :
>> >
>> > I had a look and I think that work is already done. If you look closely
>> to
>> > JsonbAccessMode, it already delegates to the FieldAndMethodAccessMode
>> from
>> > Johnzon, or uses the one defined in the johnzon.accessModeDelegate
>> > property. I think there is only one thing missing, which is, the
>> > JsonbAccessMode when checking visibilities, does not take into account
>> > fields or methods annotated with Johnzon annotations. I’ve added a
>> custom
>> > PropertyVisibilityStrategy to look into the Johnzon stuff, and then the
>> > delegate will handle the rest I believe.
>> >
>> > I’ve created a JIRA for it and updated the PR:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221 <
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221>
>> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142 <
>> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Roberto
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 8 Aug 2018, at 21:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> MP doesnt require it yet - will in 2.0 pby.
>> >>
>> >> Issue we have is to know you use jsonb. That said, thinking out loud
>> tomee
>> >> can impl a johnzon accessmode merging jsonb and native model which
>> would
>> >> solve most of it with a few tomee glue code in tomee cxf rs listener
>> for
>> >> priorities.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds the best compromise and makes everyone happy.
>> >>
>> >> Le mer. 8 août 2018 21:38, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> a
>> >> écrit :
>> >>
>> >>> I think we should push to include a MP compatible version as well.
>> >>> Right now, all other major vendors have compatible distributions and
>> we
>> >>> are sitting at zero.
>> >>> The JsonbProvider is an issue both for the EE8 and MP stuff. I'm fine
>> > that
>> >>> we are not TCK compliant. On the other hand, this would be the
>> behaviour
>> > I
>> >>> would expect if I'm using JAX-RS and JSON-B, which we are shipping,
>> so I
>> >>> think we should not ignore it.
>> >>> Cheers,Roberto
>> >>>   On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 2:32:22 PM GMT+1, Matthew Broadhead <
>> >>> matthew.broadhead@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> A +1
>> >>>
>> >>> On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> >>>> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
>> >>>> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
>> >>>> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address
>> >>> JavaEE8 but are not certified.
>> >>>> Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8
>> >>> TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any
>> >>> proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>> strub
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
>> >>>>> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib)
>> and
>> >>>>> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very
>> >>> core of
>> >>>>> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document
>> that.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> >>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> >>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> >>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> >>>>> <
>> >>>
>> >
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez
>> > <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> >>> a
>> >>>>> écrit :
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
>> >>>>>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
>> >>>>>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old /
>> new.
>> >>>>>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>> >>>>>>  On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <
>> >>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the
>> >>> side
>> >>>>>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
>> >>>>>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not
>> sure
>> >>> it
>> >>>>>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing
>> is
>> >>> the
>> >>>>>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it
>> was
>> >>> set
>> >>>>>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> >>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> >>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> >>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> >>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> >>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez
>> >>> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> >>>>>> a
>> >>>>>> écrit :
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
>> >>>>>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect
>> for
>> >>>>>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected
>> and
>> >>>>>> have
>> >>>>>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
>> >>>>>> configuration.
>> >>>>>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the
>> >>> Jsonb
>> >>>>>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not
>> >>> fallback to
>> >>>>>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
>> >>> Romain
>> >>>>>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
>> >>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break
>> some
>> >>> users
>> >>>>>>> :(.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> >>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> >>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> >>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> >>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
>> >>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>> écrit :
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I understand.
>> >>>>>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues
>> with
>> >>> the
>> >>>>>> MP
>> >>>>>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being
>> applied
>> >>> due
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I
>> believe
>> >>> this
>> >>>>>>>> should be the default behaviour.
>> >>>>>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to
>> setup
>> >>> the
>> >>>>>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via
>> cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>> >>>>>>>>  On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain
>> Manni-Bucau
>> >>> <
>> >>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Hi Roberto,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same
>> time
>> >>>>>> (both
>> >>>>>>>> will conflict).
>> >>>>>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users
>> of
>> >>>>>> TomEE
>> >>>>>>> 7
>> >>>>>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old
>> >>> behavior
>> >>>>>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the
>> jaxrs
>> >>>>>>> mapper
>> >>>>>>>> page.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> >>>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> >>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> >>>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> >>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
>> >>>>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> écrit :
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb
>> Provider
>> >>> to
>> >>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the
>> project,
>> > it
>> >>>>>>> was
>> >>>>>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre
>> TomEE
>> >>>>>> 8.
>> >>>>>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and
>> add
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
>> >>>>>>> providers
>> >>>>>>>>> list.
>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,Roberto
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
looks good

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le lun. 13 août 2018 à 18:13, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
a écrit :

> I’ve added a couple of more tests. Let me know if you are looking for
> something in particular.
>
> > On 10 Aug 2018, at 20:36, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > sonds good but should probably be more unit tested (@JohnzonProperty
> > typically) to be covered since it is not a real official feature
> >
> > Le 10 août 2018 19:14, "Roberto Cortez" <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > I had a look and I think that work is already done. If you look closely
> to
> > JsonbAccessMode, it already delegates to the FieldAndMethodAccessMode
> from
> > Johnzon, or uses the one defined in the johnzon.accessModeDelegate
> > property. I think there is only one thing missing, which is, the
> > JsonbAccessMode when checking visibilities, does not take into account
> > fields or methods annotated with Johnzon annotations. I’ve added a custom
> > PropertyVisibilityStrategy to look into the Johnzon stuff, and then the
> > delegate will handle the rest I believe.
> >
> > I’ve created a JIRA for it and updated the PR:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221>
> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142 <
> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >> On 8 Aug 2018, at 21:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> MP doesnt require it yet - will in 2.0 pby.
> >>
> >> Issue we have is to know you use jsonb. That said, thinking out loud
> tomee
> >> can impl a johnzon accessmode merging jsonb and native model which would
> >> solve most of it with a few tomee glue code in tomee cxf rs listener for
> >> priorities.
> >>
> >> Sounds the best compromise and makes everyone happy.
> >>
> >> Le mer. 8 août 2018 21:38, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >>> I think we should push to include a MP compatible version as well.
> >>> Right now, all other major vendors have compatible distributions and we
> >>> are sitting at zero.
> >>> The JsonbProvider is an issue both for the EE8 and MP stuff. I'm fine
> > that
> >>> we are not TCK compliant. On the other hand, this would be the
> behaviour
> > I
> >>> would expect if I'm using JAX-RS and JSON-B, which we are shipping, so
> I
> >>> think we should not ignore it.
> >>> Cheers,Roberto
> >>>   On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 2:32:22 PM GMT+1, Matthew Broadhead <
> >>> matthew.broadhead@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A +1
> >>>
> >>> On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >>>> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
> >>>> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
> >>>>
> >>>> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
> >>>> So far we have 2 options on the table:
> >>>>
> >>>> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address
> >>> JavaEE8 but are not certified.
> >>>> Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
> >>>>
> >>>> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8
> >>> TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any
> >>> proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
> >>>>
> >>>> LieGrue,
> >>>> strub
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
> >>>>> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib)
> and
> >>>>> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very
> >>> core of
> >>>>> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>>>> <
> >>>
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez
> > <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> >>> a
> >>>>> écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
> >>>>>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
> >>>>>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old /
> new.
> >>>>>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
> >>>>>>  On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the
> >>> side
> >>>>>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
> >>>>>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not
> sure
> >>> it
> >>>>>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is
> >>> the
> >>>>>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it
> was
> >>> set
> >>>>>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>>>>> <
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez
> >>> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> écrit :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
> >>>>>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect
> for
> >>>>>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected
> and
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
> >>>>>> configuration.
> >>>>>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the
> >>> Jsonb
> >>>>>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not
> >>> fallback to
> >>>>>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
> >>> Romain
> >>>>>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
> >>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some
> >>> users
> >>>>>>> :(.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
> >>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> écrit :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I understand.
> >>>>>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with
> >>> the
> >>>>>> MP
> >>>>>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being
> applied
> >>> due
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe
> >>> this
> >>>>>>>> should be the default behaviour.
> >>>>>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to
> setup
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via
> cxf.jaxrs.providers?
> >>>>>>>>  On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> <
> >>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Roberto,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
> >>>>>> (both
> >>>>>>>> will conflict).
> >>>>>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
> >>>>>> TomEE
> >>>>>>> 7
> >>>>>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old
> >>> behavior
> >>>>>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the
> jaxrs
> >>>>>>> mapper
> >>>>>>>> page.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
> >>>>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> écrit :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb
> Provider
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project,
> > it
> >>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre
> TomEE
> >>>>>> 8.
> >>>>>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and
> add
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
> >>>>>>> providers
> >>>>>>>>> list.
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,Roberto
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I’ve added a couple of more tests. Let me know if you are looking for something in particular.

> On 10 Aug 2018, at 20:36, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> sonds good but should probably be more unit tested (@JohnzonProperty
> typically) to be covered since it is not a real official feature
> 
> Le 10 août 2018 19:14, "Roberto Cortez" <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
> écrit :
> 
> I had a look and I think that work is already done. If you look closely to
> JsonbAccessMode, it already delegates to the FieldAndMethodAccessMode from
> Johnzon, or uses the one defined in the johnzon.accessModeDelegate
> property. I think there is only one thing missing, which is, the
> JsonbAccessMode when checking visibilities, does not take into account
> fields or methods annotated with Johnzon annotations. I’ve added a custom
> PropertyVisibilityStrategy to look into the Johnzon stuff, and then the
> delegate will handle the rest I believe.
> 
> I’ve created a JIRA for it and updated the PR:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221>
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142 <
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142>
> 
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> 
> 
>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 21:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> MP doesnt require it yet - will in 2.0 pby.
>> 
>> Issue we have is to know you use jsonb. That said, thinking out loud tomee
>> can impl a johnzon accessmode merging jsonb and native model which would
>> solve most of it with a few tomee glue code in tomee cxf rs listener for
>> priorities.
>> 
>> Sounds the best compromise and makes everyone happy.
>> 
>> Le mer. 8 août 2018 21:38, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
>> écrit :
>> 
>>> I think we should push to include a MP compatible version as well.
>>> Right now, all other major vendors have compatible distributions and we
>>> are sitting at zero.
>>> The JsonbProvider is an issue both for the EE8 and MP stuff. I'm fine
> that
>>> we are not TCK compliant. On the other hand, this would be the behaviour
> I
>>> would expect if I'm using JAX-RS and JSON-B, which we are shipping, so I
>>> think we should not ignore it.
>>> Cheers,Roberto
>>>   On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 2:32:22 PM GMT+1, Matthew Broadhead <
>>> matthew.broadhead@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
>>> 
>>> A +1
>>> 
>>> On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
>>>> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>>>> 
>>>> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
>>>> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>>>> 
>>>> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address
>>> JavaEE8 but are not certified.
>>>> Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>>>> 
>>>> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8
>>> TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any
>>> proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>>>> 
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
>>>>> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
>>>>> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very
>>> core of
>>>>> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <
>>> 
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez
> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
>>>>>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
>>>>>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
>>>>>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>>>>>>  On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the
>>> side
>>>>>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
>>>>>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure
>>> it
>>>>>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is
>>> the
>>>>>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was
>>> set
>>>>>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> 
>>> 
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez
>>> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
>>>>>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
>>>>>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
>>>>>> configuration.
>>>>>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the
>>> Jsonb
>>>>>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not
>>> fallback to
>>>>>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
>>> Romain
>>>>>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some
>>> users
>>>>>>> :(.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> 
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I understand.
>>>>>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with
>>> the
>>>>>> MP
>>>>>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied
>>> due
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe
>>> this
>>>>>>>> should be the default behaviour.
>>>>>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup
>>> the
>>>>>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>>>>>>>>  On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
>>>>>> (both
>>>>>>>> will conflict).
>>>>>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
>>>>>> TomEE
>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old
>>> behavior
>>>>>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
>>>>>>> mapper
>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> 
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
>>>>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider
>>> to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project,
> it
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
>>>>>> 8.
>>>>>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
>>>>>>> providers
>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,Roberto
>>> 
>>>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
sonds good but should probably be more unit tested (@JohnzonProperty
typically) to be covered since it is not a real official feature

Le 10 août 2018 19:14, "Roberto Cortez" <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

I had a look and I think that work is already done. If you look closely to
JsonbAccessMode, it already delegates to the FieldAndMethodAccessMode from
Johnzon, or uses the one defined in the johnzon.accessModeDelegate
property. I think there is only one thing missing, which is, the
JsonbAccessMode when checking visibilities, does not take into account
fields or methods annotated with Johnzon annotations. I’ve added a custom
PropertyVisibilityStrategy to look into the Johnzon stuff, and then the
delegate will handle the rest I believe.

I’ve created a JIRA for it and updated the PR:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221 <
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221>
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142 <
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142>

Cheers,
Roberto


> On 8 Aug 2018, at 21:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> MP doesnt require it yet - will in 2.0 pby.
>
> Issue we have is to know you use jsonb. That said, thinking out loud tomee
> can impl a johnzon accessmode merging jsonb and native model which would
> solve most of it with a few tomee glue code in tomee cxf rs listener for
> priorities.
>
> Sounds the best compromise and makes everyone happy.
>
> Le mer. 8 août 2018 21:38, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
> écrit :
>
>> I think we should push to include a MP compatible version as well.
>> Right now, all other major vendors have compatible distributions and we
>> are sitting at zero.
>> The JsonbProvider is an issue both for the EE8 and MP stuff. I'm fine
that
>> we are not TCK compliant. On the other hand, this would be the behaviour
I
>> would expect if I'm using JAX-RS and JSON-B, which we are shipping, so I
>> think we should not ignore it.
>> Cheers,Roberto
>>    On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 2:32:22 PM GMT+1, Matthew Broadhead <
>> matthew.broadhead@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> A +1
>>
>> On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
>>> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>>>
>>> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
>>> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>>>
>>> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address
>> JavaEE8 but are not certified.
>>> Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>>>
>>> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8
>> TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any
>> proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
>>>> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
>>>> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very
>> core of
>>>> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <
>>
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez
<ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
>>>>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
>>>>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
>>>>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>>>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the
>> side
>>>>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
>>>>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure
>> it
>>>>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is
>> the
>>>>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was
>> set
>>>>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>
>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez
>> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>>> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
>>>>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
>>>>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
>>>>> have
>>>>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
>>>>> configuration.
>>>>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the
>> Jsonb
>>>>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not
>> fallback to
>>>>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
>> Romain
>>>>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some
>> users
>>>>>> :(.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand.
>>>>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with
>> the
>>>>> MP
>>>>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied
>> due
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe
>> this
>>>>>>> should be the default behaviour.
>>>>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup
>> the
>>>>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>>>>>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <
>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
>>>>> (both
>>>>>>> will conflict).
>>>>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
>>>>> TomEE
>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old
>> behavior
>>>>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
>>>>>> mapper
>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
>>>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider
>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project,
it
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
>>>>> 8.
>>>>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
>>>>>> providers
>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>> Cheers,Roberto
>>
>>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I had a look and I think that work is already done. If you look closely to JsonbAccessMode, it already delegates to the FieldAndMethodAccessMode from Johnzon, or uses the one defined in the johnzon.accessModeDelegate property. I think there is only one thing missing, which is, the JsonbAccessMode when checking visibilities, does not take into account fields or methods annotated with Johnzon annotations. I’ve added a custom PropertyVisibilityStrategy to look into the Johnzon stuff, and then the delegate will handle the rest I believe.

I’ve created a JIRA for it and updated the PR:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2221>
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142 <https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/142>

Cheers,
Roberto

> On 8 Aug 2018, at 21:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> MP doesnt require it yet - will in 2.0 pby.
> 
> Issue we have is to know you use jsonb. That said, thinking out loud tomee
> can impl a johnzon accessmode merging jsonb and native model which would
> solve most of it with a few tomee glue code in tomee cxf rs listener for
> priorities.
> 
> Sounds the best compromise and makes everyone happy.
> 
> Le mer. 8 août 2018 21:38, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
> écrit :
> 
>> I think we should push to include a MP compatible version as well.
>> Right now, all other major vendors have compatible distributions and we
>> are sitting at zero.
>> The JsonbProvider is an issue both for the EE8 and MP stuff. I'm fine that
>> we are not TCK compliant. On the other hand, this would be the behaviour I
>> would expect if I'm using JAX-RS and JSON-B, which we are shipping, so I
>> think we should not ignore it.
>> Cheers,Roberto
>>    On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 2:32:22 PM GMT+1, Matthew Broadhead <
>> matthew.broadhead@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
>> 
>> A +1
>> 
>> On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
>>> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>>> 
>>> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
>>> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>>> 
>>> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address
>> JavaEE8 but are not certified.
>>> Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>>> 
>>> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8
>> TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any
>> proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>>> 
>>>> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
>>>> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
>>>> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very
>> core of
>>>> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
>>>> 
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
>>>>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
>>>>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
>>>>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>>>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the
>> side
>>>>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
>>>>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure
>> it
>>>>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is
>> the
>>>>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was
>> set
>>>>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <
>>>>> 
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez
>> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>>> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
>>>>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
>>>>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
>>>>> have
>>>>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
>>>>> configuration.
>>>>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the
>> Jsonb
>>>>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not
>> fallback to
>>>>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
>> Romain
>>>>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some
>> users
>>>>>> :(.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I understand.
>>>>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with
>> the
>>>>> MP
>>>>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied
>> due
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe
>> this
>>>>>>> should be the default behaviour.
>>>>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup
>> the
>>>>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>>>>>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <
>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
>>>>> (both
>>>>>>> will conflict).
>>>>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
>>>>> TomEE
>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old
>> behavior
>>>>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
>>>>>> mapper
>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
>>>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider
>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
>>>>> 8.
>>>>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
>>>>>> providers
>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>> Cheers,Roberto
>> 
>>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
MP doesnt require it yet - will in 2.0 pby.

Issue we have is to know you use jsonb. That said, thinking out loud tomee
can impl a johnzon accessmode merging jsonb and native model which would
solve most of it with a few tomee glue code in tomee cxf rs listener for
priorities.

Sounds the best compromise and makes everyone happy.

Le mer. 8 août 2018 21:38, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

>  I think we should push to include a MP compatible version as well.
> Right now, all other major vendors have compatible distributions and we
> are sitting at zero.
> The JsonbProvider is an issue both for the EE8 and MP stuff. I'm fine that
> we are not TCK compliant. On the other hand, this would be the behaviour I
> would expect if I'm using JAX-RS and JSON-B, which we are shipping, so I
> think we should not ignore it.
> Cheers,Roberto
>     On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 2:32:22 PM GMT+1, Matthew Broadhead <
> matthew.broadhead@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
>
>  A +1
>
> On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
> > Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
> >
> > We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
> > So far we have 2 options on the table:
> >
> > A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address
> JavaEE8 but are not certified.
> >  Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
> >
> > B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8
> TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any
> proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
> >> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
> >> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very
> core of
> >> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
> >>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
> >>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
> >>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
> >>>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the
> side
> >>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
> >>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure
> it
> >>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is
> the
> >>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was
> set
> >>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
> >>>
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>> <
> >>>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>
> >>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez
> <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> >>> a
> >>> écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
> >>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
> >>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
> >>> have
> >>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
> >>> configuration.
> >>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the
> Jsonb
> >>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not
> fallback to
> >>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
> Romain
> >>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
> >>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some
> users
> >>>> :(.
> >>>>
> >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>
> >>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >>>>
> >>>> a
> >>>> écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> I understand.
> >>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with
> the
> >>> MP
> >>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied
> due
> >>>> to
> >>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe
> this
> >>>>> should be the default behaviour.
> >>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup
> the
> >>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
> >>>>>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <
> >>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Roberto,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
> >>> (both
> >>>>> will conflict).
> >>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
> >>> TomEE
> >>>> 7
> >>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old
> behavior
> >>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
> >>>> mapper
> >>>>> page.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>>>> <
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
> >>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider
> to
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
> >>>> was
> >>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
> >>> 8.
> >>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
> >>> the
> >>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
> >>>> providers
> >>>>>> list.
> >>>>>> Cheers,Roberto
>
>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
 I think we should push to include a MP compatible version as well.
Right now, all other major vendors have compatible distributions and we are sitting at zero.
The JsonbProvider is an issue both for the EE8 and MP stuff. I'm fine that we are not TCK compliant. On the other hand, this would be the behaviour I would expect if I'm using JAX-RS and JSON-B, which we are shipping, so I think we should not ignore it.
Cheers,Roberto
    On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 2:32:22 PM GMT+1, Matthew Broadhead <ma...@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:  
 
 A +1

On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>
> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>
> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address JavaEE8 but are not certified.
>  Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>
> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8 TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
>> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
>> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very core of
>> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
>>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
>>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
>>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>>>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
>>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
>>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure it
>>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
>>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was set
>>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <
>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>
>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
>>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
>>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
>>> have
>>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
>>> configuration.
>>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
>>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback to
>>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, Romain
>>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
>>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
>>>> :(.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <
>>>>
>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>
>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> I understand.
>>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the
>>> MP
>>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due
>>>> to
>>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
>>>>> should be the default behaviour.
>>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
>>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>>>>>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
>>> (both
>>>>> will conflict).
>>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
>>> TomEE
>>>> 7
>>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
>>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
>>>> mapper
>>>>> page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>
>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
>>>> the
>>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
>>>> was
>>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
>>> 8.
>>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
>>> the
>>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
>>>> providers
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>> Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Matthew Broadhead <ma...@nbmlaw.co.uk.INVALID>.
A +1

On 07/08/18 14:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>
> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>
> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address JavaEE8 but are not certified.
>   Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>
> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8 TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
>> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
>> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very core of
>> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
>>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
>>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
>>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>>>     On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
>>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
>>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure it
>>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
>>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was set
>>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <
>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>
>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
>>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
>>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
>>> have
>>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
>>> configuration.
>>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
>>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback to
>>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, Romain
>>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
>>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
>>>> :(.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <
>>>>
>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>
>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> I understand.
>>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the
>>> MP
>>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due
>>>> to
>>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
>>>>> should be the default behaviour.
>>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
>>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>>>>>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
>>> (both
>>>>> will conflict).
>>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
>>> TomEE
>>>> 7
>>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
>>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
>>>> mapper
>>>>> page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>
>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
>>>> the
>>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
>>>> was
>>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
>>> 8.
>>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
>>> the
>>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
>>>> providers
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>> Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
Hi Gurkan!

We did that already last year. And the outcome back then was as described in option A ;)

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 08.08.2018 um 22:24 schrieb Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hello Mark
> Instead of using this thread, can you please create a new VOTE thread on
> this (versioning for the TomEE 8 release) ?
> Regards.
> Gurkan
> 
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
>> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>> 
>> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
>> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>> 
>> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address JavaEE8
>> but are not certified.
>> Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>> 
>> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8 TCK.
>> Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any proper
>> non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>> :
>>> 
>>> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
>>> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
>>> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very core
>> of
>>> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
>> rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
>> ee-8-high-performance>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> a
>>> écrit :
>>> 
>>>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
>>>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
>>>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
>>>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
>>>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
>>>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure
>> it
>>>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
>>>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was
>> set
>>>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>>>> 
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <
>>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
>> ee-8-high-performance
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>> 
>>>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
>>>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
>>>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
>>>> have
>>>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
>>>> configuration.
>>>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
>>>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback
>> to
>>>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
>> Romain
>>>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
>>>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some
>> users
>>>>> :(.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <
>>>>> 
>>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
>> ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>> 
>>>>> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I understand.
>>>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the
>>>> MP
>>>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied
>> due
>>>>> to
>>>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe
>> this
>>>>>> should be the default behaviour.
>>>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup
>> the
>>>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>>>>>>  On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
>>>> (both
>>>>>> will conflict).
>>>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
>>>> TomEE
>>>>> 7
>>>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
>>>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
>>>>> mapper
>>>>>> page.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
>> ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
>>>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
>>>>> was
>>>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
>>>> 8.
>>>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
>>>> the
>>>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
>>>>> providers
>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>> Cheers,Roberto
>> 
>>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>.
Hello Mark
Instead of using this thread, can you please create a new VOTE thread on
this (versioning for the TomEE 8 release) ?
Regards.
Gurkan

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
wrote:

> Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
> Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally.
>
> We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
> So far we have 2 options on the table:
>
> A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address JavaEE8
> but are not certified.
>  Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.
>
> B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8 TCK.
> Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any proper
> non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
> > providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
> > since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very core
> of
> > TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
> rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance>
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
> >> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
> >> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
> >> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
> >>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
> >> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
> >> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure
> it
> >> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
> >> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was
> set
> >> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >> <
> >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >
> >> a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
> >>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
> >>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
> >> have
> >>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
> >> configuration.
> >>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
> >>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback
> to
> >>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1,
> Romain
> >>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
> >>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some
> users
> >>> :(.
> >>>
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>> <
> >>>
> >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez
> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >>>
> >>> a
> >>> écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> I understand.
> >>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the
> >> MP
> >>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied
> due
> >>> to
> >>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe
> this
> >>>> should be the default behaviour.
> >>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup
> the
> >>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
> >>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Roberto,
> >>>>
> >>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
> >> (both
> >>>> will conflict).
> >>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
> >> TomEE
> >>> 7
> >>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
> >>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
> >>> mapper
> >>>> page.
> >>>>
> >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-
> ee-8-high-performance
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
> >> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >>>>
> >>>> a
> >>>> écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
> >>> the
> >>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
> >>> was
> >>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
> >> 8.
> >>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
> >> the
> >>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
> >>> providers
> >>>>> list.
> >>>>> Cheers,Roberto
>
>

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
Folks, probably it's easier to push hard for a first TomEE8 release?
Things like the JsonbProvider will fall into place quite naturally. 

We just have to be clear about how we name that baby.
So far we have 2 options on the table:

A.) Go 8.0.0, 8.0.1, etc now and openly declaring that we address JavaEE8 but are not certified.
 Plus release 8.1.0 one JakartaEE8 TCK is available and we pass it.

B.) Go 8.0.0-M1, M2, etc. And do a 8.0.0 once we pass the JakartaEE8 TCK. Note that this will mean that we will see a good year without any proper non-M release. And this might hurt adoption.

LieGrue,
strub






> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> 
> if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
> providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
> since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very core of
> TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
> 
> 
> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
> écrit :
> 
>> If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
>> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
>> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
>> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
>> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
>> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure it
>> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
>> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was set
>> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>> 
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> a
>> écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
>>> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
>>> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
>> have
>>> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
>> configuration.
>>> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
>>> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback to
>>> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, Romain
>>> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
>>> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
>>> :(.
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <
>>> 
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>> 
>>> a
>>> écrit :
>>> 
>>>> I understand.
>>>> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the
>> MP
>>>> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due
>>> to
>>>> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
>>>> should be the default behaviour.
>>>> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
>>>> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>>>>   On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>> 
>>>> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
>> (both
>>>> will conflict).
>>>> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
>> TomEE
>>> 7
>>>> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
>>>> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
>>> mapper
>>>> page.
>>>> 
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
>> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>> 
>>>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
>>> the
>>>>> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
>>> was
>>>>> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
>> 8.
>>>>> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
>> the
>>>>> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
>>> providers
>>>>> list.
>>>>> Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
if we want to provide a flag yes but since we'll break as much not
providing the lib (it is as hard to set the flag than to add a lib) and
since staying small and minimalistic always has been something very core of
TomEE I start to think we should just drop it and well document that.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:52, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

>  If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old
> provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
> I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new.
> Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
>     On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
> effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
> That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure it
> will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
> default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was set
> explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a
> écrit :
>
> >
> > Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
> > integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
> > response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and
> have
> > this working OOTB in the standard server without additional
> configuration.
> > I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
> > one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback to
> > the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, Romain
> > Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
> > I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
> > :(.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >
> > a
> > écrit :
> >
> > >  I understand.
> > > I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the
> MP
> > > TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due
> > to
> > > the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
> > > should be the default behaviour.
> > > To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
> > > old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
> > >    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Hi Roberto,
> > >
> > > You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time
> (both
> > > will conflict).
> > > I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of
> TomEE
> > 7
> > > so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
> > > globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
> > mapper
> > > page.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez
> <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> > >
> > > a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
> > the
> > > > default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
> > was
> > > > just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE
> 8.
> > > > If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add
> the
> > > > org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
> > providers
> > > > list.
> > > > Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
 If we want to have a flag that allows the user to return to the old provider, don't we need to keep johnson-jaxrs?
I'm in favour of adding a simple flag that switches between old / new. Something like openejb.jaxrs.legacy.providers = true / false.
    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:42:13 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure it
will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was set
explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

>
> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and have
> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional configuration.
> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback to
> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, Romain
> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
> :(.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a
> écrit :
>
> >  I understand.
> > I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the MP
> > TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due
> to
> > the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
> > should be the default behaviour.
> > To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
> > old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
> >    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Roberto,
> >
> > You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time (both
> > will conflict).
> > I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of TomEE
> 7
> > so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
> > globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
> mapper
> > page.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >
> > a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
> the
> > > default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
> was
> > > just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE 8.
> > > If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add the
> > > org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
> providers
> > > list.
> > > Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Sure, the target is quite clear I think, but we should mitigate the side
effect for our users, this is why a flag can be worth it.
That said we can drop johnzon-jaxrs going to johnzon-jsonb so not sure it
will be better than when we dropped jettison. Only positive thing is the
default serialization will not change, only API is different if it was set
explicitly (@JsonbProperty or so).

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:37, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

>
> Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the
> integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for
> response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and have
> this working OOTB in the standard server without additional configuration.
> I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb
> one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback to
> the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, Romain
> Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
> I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
> :(.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a
> écrit :
>
> >  I understand.
> > I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the MP
> > TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due
> to
> > the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
> > should be the default behaviour.
> > To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
> > old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
> >    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Roberto,
> >
> > You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time (both
> > will conflict).
> > I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of TomEE
> 7
> > so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
> > globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs
> mapper
> > page.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >
> > a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to
> the
> > > default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it
> was
> > > just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE 8.
> > > If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add the
> > > org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the
> providers
> > > list.
> > > Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
 
Maybe we need some more opinions. I don't know how strong is the integration between json-b and jax-rs in EE8, but I would expect for response objects annotated with jsonb annotations to be respected and have this working OOTB in the standard server without additional configuration.
I wonder if we should write an hybrid provider that would use the Jsonb one if the response object finds Jsonb annotations and if not fallback to the TomEE 7 one?    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 4:31:41 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
:(.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

>  I understand.
> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the MP
> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due to
> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
> should be the default behaviour.
> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Roberto,
>
> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time (both
> will conflict).
> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of TomEE 7
> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs mapper
> page.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> > I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to the
> > default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it was
> > just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE 8.
> > If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add the
> > org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the providers
> > list.
> > Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Yep, or we just do it OOTB for the MP distro in a first step.
I don't have any strong opinion since in all cases we'll break some users
:(.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 17:26, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

>  I understand.
> I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the MP
> TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due to
> the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this
> should be the default behaviour.
> To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the
> old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
>     On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Roberto,
>
> You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time (both
> will conflict).
> I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of TomEE 7
> so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
> globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs mapper
> page.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> > I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to the
> > default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it was
> > just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE 8.
> > If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add the
> > org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the providers
> > list.
> > Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
 I understand.
I think we need to do it, since I've found a couple of issues with the MP TCK using models with Jsonb annotations that were not being applied due to the missing provider. And Jsonb is also part of EE 8, so I believe this should be the default behaviour.
To return to the old behaviour, we could have instructions to setup the old provider via system.properties, right? Via cxf.jaxrs.providers?
    On Thursday, August 2, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+1, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Hi Roberto,

You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time (both
will conflict).
I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of TomEE 7
so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs mapper
page.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

> Hi,
> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to the
> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it was
> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE 8.
> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add the
> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the providers
> list.
> Cheers,Roberto

Re: TomEE 8 Jsonb Provider

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Roberto,

You can't get this one and the old johnzon mapper at the same time (both
will conflict).
I'm all for migrating to jsonb but note it will break end users of TomEE 7
so we should IMHO ensure the way to configure back to the old behavior
globally (without modifying the app) is well documented on the jaxrs mapper
page.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 16:16, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> a
écrit :

> Hi,
> I was wondering if it will be ok to add the Johnzon Jsonb Provider to the
> default providers list? The dependency is already in the project, it was
> just commented out with a "java 8 only". I guess this was pre TomEE 8.
> If this is ok, here is a PR that uncomments the dependency and add the
> org.apache.johnzon.jaxrs.jsonb.jaxrs.JsonbJaxrsProvider in the providers
> list.
> Cheers,Roberto