Hi Farrukh,
please see inline...
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:42:47AM -0500, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> 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
FYI: JAXB-RI impl 2.1.10 has just been released :-)
> 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
The documentation is missing at the moment. I need to fix this,
hopefully in the next week.
~Jakub
> details? Thanks.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>