I may've misunderstood what JSON-P stands for,
still seems to be too late; and promoting specific JSON-P types at the
spec level definitely does not look right to me
Sergey
On 23/01/13 15:57, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 23/01/13 15:48, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>> Hello Experts,
>>
>> We had an outstanding AI to look at the new JSON-P [1] API for any
>> potential integration points. After some discussions with Jitu (the
>> JSON-P lead), we'd like to propose adding support for the following
>> types:
>>
>> (1) JsonStructure, JsonObject and JsonArray as entity parameters and
>> return types for JAX-RS resource methods. Note that a JsonStructure is
>> either a JsonObject or a JsonArray (a partition). If an entity param is
>> JsonObject and an array is received (or vice-versa) an exception will be
>> thrown.
>>
>> (2) We will _not_ provide any native support for JsonParser,
>> JsonGenerator, JsonReader or JsonWriter. All these are usable with
>> either an InputStream entity parameter or a StreamingOutput return type.
>>
>> Unless there are any strong objections, I will go ahead an update the
>> spec to add support for the types in (1).
> That is a pretty strong commitment to an approach considered to be less
> effective than CORS, so unless there are really strong reasons for
> adding this and given that we are really down to doing the cosmetic
> changes + client security configuration, I'm -1 on it.
>
> Thanks, Sergey
>>
>> -- Santiago
>>
>> [1] http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=353
>
>