On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Tom Schindl
<tom.schindl_at_bestsolution.at> wrote:
> Hi Jakub and Tatu,
...
>> Unless you wanted to use the low-level JSON approach and JSONArray/JSONObject
>> classes, you would indeed need to leverage the JacksonJsonProvider as suggested by Tatu.
>
> Thanks. Just included the JacksonJsonProvider into my application and it
> looks good so far. Would it be possible at all to bring in such a
> support to jersey itself?
>
> If yes I'd try provide you a patch for it but before I start searching
> through the code I'd like to know if this is even possible at or a
> limitation of underlying infrastructure.
Concern so far has been with compatibility, that is, try to keep it
possible to use alternative backends.
JacksonJsonProvider actually could define META-INF/services definition
so that it would auto-register.
But the challenge is that then it would be difficult to change json
implementation to use one of built-in styles. That is why
jackson-jaxrs jar does not include service definition, and instead
it's necessary to register provider (which is just one-liner but
still).
Since provider itself is a rather small thing (just a single class,
mostly doing plumbing), it would seem possible to add something
similar as an optional jersey package. And ideally make it
configurable using something similar to existing mechanisms.
-+ Tatu +-