FYI
"Proposed to Drop: JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API" (for Java 9)
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2014-December/001670.html
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Martin Grebac <martin.grebac_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> 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
>
--
Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22)
@hendrikdev22
PGP: 0x22D7F6EC