It is really good.
On Dec 4, 2014 10:17 PM, "Eugen Cepoi" <cepoi.eugen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> It is a good thing that this JEP has been dropped. Not based on any
> quality criteria but rather on vision.
>
> IMO the goal of JSRs is to provide a unique API to users who want it.
> Providing an alternative solution at the heart of java would be confusing
> and contradictory with the standardization idea, thus a mistake.
>
>
> Eugen
>
> 2014-12-04 21:05 GMT+01:00 Hendrik Dev <hendrikdev22_at_gmail.com>:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>