so this means we keep the provider approach (in the first place) ?
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Martin Grebac <martin.grebac_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> On 20.02.15 10:36, Hendrik Dev wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Inderjeet Singh
>> <inder_at_alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Hendrik,
>>>>
>>>> approach cause with some sensitive default shortcuts. I aggree with
>>>> Inderjeet that Jsonb() should be sufficient the most use cases. I do
>>>> NOT aggree with Inderjeet when he says
>>>>
>>>> "There is typically NO developer concern about plugging in an
>>>> alternate implementation. So, we should just have a really good
>>>> default implementation and get rid of providers."
>>>>
>>>> cause thats a) not true and b) if you mean with default implementation
>>>> the RI then this is also not true. RI has IMHO a total other emphasis
>>>> than other non-RI implementations (and of course other licenses :-).
>>>> Inder, maybe you can clarify this, thanks :-)
>>>
>>> I am not sure I fully understand your points here.
>>> What I mean is this: Developers use whichever implementation comes with
>>> their environment.
>>> This JSR may become part of the JDK, and in that case, I don't think we
>>> care
>>> about alternate implementations.
>>
>> I was not aware of this, is this really the case?
>> At least for EE i like the provider approach.
>
> It may, it may not - with Jigsaw and modularity it may not be that required
> to grow Java SE too much. The primary goal of this JSR as of this point is
> certainly Java EE (8).
>
> MartiNG
>
--
Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22)
@hendrikdev22
PGP: 0x22D7F6EC