Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 1:19 AM, Jakub Podlesak wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Farrukh,
>>
>> We wanted to produce the JSON documents to be as simple
>> as possible for clients
>
> I would add specifically JavaScript clients (even though the JSON
> format may be more appealing as a data-format than say XML).
>
>> to consume.
>
> Right, that is the main point of JSON, which is why i think more
> literal mappings like BadgerFish miss the point, one might as well use
> XML and E4X.
>
> The problem that is really hard to juggle is that different users have
> different expectations on how they want the XML infoset produced by
> JAXB to be mapped to JSON. Which is why we have tried to offer
> different notations to meet that need.
>
> What i think we need is some good clear documentation on the "NATURAL"
> convention we have just introduced so that users can decide whether
> that is appropriate for them or not. And we should avoid mentioning
> XSD in such documentation :-)
>
Thank you Jakub and Paul for your help. At present I am stuck with older
JAXB due to some unresolved versioning compatibility issues in my stack.
This means I cannot use the NATURAL notation yet. Perhaps this will
change soon with release of JAXB and aligned releases of higher level
dependencies. I will send an update when I try the latest JAXB and
NATURAL notation. Where is the docs on al the different notations and
their details? Thanks.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com