jsr367-experts@jsonb-spec.java.net

[jsr367-experts] Re: [jsonb-spec users] Re: [1-RuntimeAPI] Proposal

From: Martin Grebac <martin.grebac_at_oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:57:36 +0100

On 20.02.15 10:36, Hendrik Dev wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Inderjeet Singh
> <inder_at_alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Hendrik,
>>> approach cause with some sensitive default shortcuts. I aggree with
>>> Inderjeet that Jsonb() should be sufficient the most use cases. I do
>>> NOT aggree with Inderjeet when he says
>>>
>>> "There is typically NO developer concern about plugging in an
>>> alternate implementation. So, we should just have a really good
>>> default implementation and get rid of providers."
>>>
>>> cause thats a) not true and b) if you mean with default implementation
>>> the RI then this is also not true. RI has IMHO a total other emphasis
>>> than other non-RI implementations (and of course other licenses :-).
>>> Inder, maybe you can clarify this, thanks :-)
>> I am not sure I fully understand your points here.
>> What I mean is this: Developers use whichever implementation comes with
>> their environment.
>> This JSR may become part of the JDK, and in that case, I don't think we care
>> about alternate implementations.
> I was not aware of this, is this really the case?
> At least for EE i like the provider approach.
It may, it may not - with Jigsaw and modularity it may not be that
required to grow Java SE too much. The primary goal of this JSR as of
this point is certainly Java EE (8).

  MartiNG