2015-04-20 19:05 GMT+02:00 Eugen Cepoi <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com>:
>
> 2015-04-19 19:44 GMT+02:00 Romain MB <rmannibucau_at_tomitribe.com>:
>>
>> Hi Martin
>>
>> for me it makes sense to support it by default with a flag like the
>> one you proposed to switch it off (a bit off topic but do we have
>> constants for these flags, something like Jsonb.I_JSON_COMPLIANCE?).
>>
>> UTF8 by default is quite mandatory IMO, must-ignore as well (already
>> discussed IIRC). ISO8601 is the standard for dates of most of
>> frameworks, big numbers need to be string whatever we do so finally
>> open points from my window are:
>>
>> - byte data as base64: on johnzon we discussed it and I didn't want it
>> cause it was far from Java - that said it is not a super common type
>> so not sure it is that important
>> - top level construct: don't recall the spec but I think primitives
>> (string, numbers) can be supported as well. Jackson does it at least
>> so +1 to not support this fail fast behavior
>
>
> I don't think there is much value in being too restrictive, +1 for it.
> I don't remember any discussion about accepting to deser. numbers as
> strings, strings as numbers etc when possible, but it would be nice.
>
>>
>> - no members with duplicate name: the only point I don't know.
>
>
> This one is painful as it has an impact on performances (esp. if we want to
> prevent user custom code to generate such output)... at the moment I don't
> support it in Genson for this reason.
>
Can't we do it on the model (ie once for the whole application
lifecycle)? I guess here we are lucky compared to JSON-P.
>>
>> Intellij Idea makes this kind of JON invalid. This is something we
>> would need to be able to switch off but I think it makes sense to have
>> it by default to detect wrong models.
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>> 2015-04-18 19:53 GMT+02:00 Martin Vojtek <voytoo_at_gmail.com>:
>> > Hi Experts,
>> >
>> >
>> > JSON-B should provide support or some level of compliance with I-JSON
>> > specification.
>> >
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493
>> >
>> > There are several things to discuss.
>> >
>> > Should JSON-B support I-JSON by default? My proposal is to not support
>> > all
>> > the recommendations of I-JSON by default.
>> >
>> > If we agree on that, what specific parts of I-JSON should JSON-B provide
>> > by
>> > default?
>> >
>> >
>> > Proposal of parts (of I-JSON) to support by JSON-B by default:
>> >
>> > Should be supported by default:
>> > - Encoding and Characters (UTF-8 by default)
>> > - Object constraints (no members with duplicate name)
>> > - MUST-IGNORE policy - partial mapping
>> > - Time and Date Handling - serialize accoring to I-JSON
>> >
>> > Should not be supported by default:
>> > - Numbers - serialize big number(s) into string (and deser given strings
>> > into number)
>> > - Top-Level Constructs - fail fast when ser/deser something different
>> > than
>> > object/array as top-level JSON
>> > - binary data encoded as a string in base64url
>> >
>> >
>> > To support I-JSON fully in some case, I propose to provide I-JSON
>> > compatibility mode available via config property.
>> >
>> > JsonbConfig config = new
>> > JsonbConfig().setProperty("jsonb.i-json.compliance", true);
>> > Jsonb jsonb = JsonbBuilder.create(config);
>> >
>> > Looking forward to your feedback.
>> >
>> > MartinV
>
>