On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Przemyslaw Bielicki
<pbielicki_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> @Hendrik - no I was serious about system / environment properties because
> this is a common way of overriding compiled properties/settings in different
> test and (pre)production environments. I also proposed a specialized
> JsonbConfig interface which is more generic approach, thus system properties
> can be considered as a dead-issue (or trolling if you prefer ;)
I clearly prefer the "specialized JsonbConfig" approach, not a big fan
of system props to be honest.
>
> As I said before - I'm a supporter or the opinion that API should contain
> only interfaces and exception classes. I'm open for some extremely useful
> exceptions to this rule but all the ppl here should be aware that changing
> something in RI will be quick and easy while if we make mistake or want to
> change anything in the API classes it might take months (even for simple
> change) because of JCP process.
agree
>
> I think you should post your diffs as email attachment. I prefer github but
> as I understand we are not going to use it for this project, so we have to
> get used to pure git.
Patches attached
>
> Cheers,
> Przemyslaw
>
Thanks
Hendrik
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Hendrik Dev <hendrikdev22_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin, Hi Experts,
>>
>> sorry for delay, here are my comments and patches:
>>
>> 1) Do we really need a JSONB_FROMJSON_ENCODING and if yes whats the
>> default? According to RFC 4627 JSON is must always be Unicode and the
>> encosing can therefore be always be detected by the algo described in
>> chapter 3.
>>
>> 2) Jsonb.java: Do we also want to add java.nio andy byte[] support here?
>>
>> 3) Jsonb.java: Suggest to change Class<T> to Type for the fromJson()
>> methods to support generic types. (JSONB_SPEC-30)
>>
>> 4) @Przemyslaw: System properties? later you said trolling, hope so :-)
>>
>...
--
Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22)
@hendrikdev22
PGP: 0x22D7F6EC