users@jsonb-spec.java.net

[jsonb-spec users] [jsr367-experts] Re: Re: jsr367 vs jep198

From: Martin Grebac <martin.grebac_at_oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 10:00:54 +0100

On 28.11.14 20:48, Hendrik Dev wrote:
> There is currently a discussion on the jsr-366 mailinglist [1] about this.
> At least JEP 198 doesn't overlap with jsr-367 because binding is
> defined as a non-goal in JEP 198.
> But sooner or later i guess they came up with a JEP that will target
> json binding.
>
> I think we cannot use Java 8 features for JSON-B cause "JSR is
> targeted for Java SE 7 or higher" (Section 2.2 of the JSR request)
Hi,
  yes, the JSR was submitted in favor of SE 7 support. Though if there's
a strong agreement this will significantly limit the functionality,
quality and/or usability of the 367 API, it would make sense to
reevaluate this particular item, given also the fast adoption of SE 8.
  MartiNG

> Kind regards
> Hendrik
>
> [1] https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists/users/archive/2014-11/thread/3#00059
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:06 PM, <pbielicki_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Did you guys see Werner Keil's comment on JSR review ballot?
>> He brings an interesting point and puts on the table
>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198
>>
>> Doesn't this JEP overlap a bit with JSON-P & B?
>> I understand that this JSR (367) targets mainly EE audience but there
>> is more in Java than EE, isn't it?
>>
>> Also, it is not clear for me if we could use Java 8 features (e.g.
>> lambdas or streams) in the RI.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Przemyslaw
>
>

-- 
Martin Grebac, SW Engineering Manager
Oracle Czech, Prague