Great, let's approach it that way then. I am pretty sure anyone willing
to help will understand and accept the obstacles. I will wait for your
more immediate change before we seriously try to move forward the web
presence for JSON-B. Your change will at least enable Adopt-a-JSR
activities that are a lot easier.
On 6/23/2016 12:57 PM, Dmitry Kornilov wrote:
>
> OK, I understand your concern. We are hosting on eclipse.org. A person
> making changes to the page has to be an eclipse committer. It’s an
> obstacle for many users.
>
> On the other hand, the page is stored in a public git repository here:
> http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/eclipselink.git/
>
> Anyone can get the sources, make changes and submit merge requests the
> standard way. We can apply merge requests after review.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
> *From: *Reza Rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
> *Reply-To: *<users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>
> *Date: *Thursday 23 June 2016 at 18:02
> *To: *<users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>
> *Subject: *[jsonb-spec users] Re: Public Review
>
> Great. Just so you know there would be no lack of people in the
> community willing to help make a very compelling web presence for
> JSON-B (perhaps similar to what Jersey and GlassFish have today).
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Dmitry Kornilov
> <dmitry.kornilov_at_oracle.com <mailto:dmitry.kornilov_at_oracle.com>>
> wrote:
>
> It’s OK. I’ll update the page tomorrow.
>
> Dmitry
>
> *From: *Reza Rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com
> <mailto:reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>>
> *Reply-To: *<users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net
> <mailto:users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>>
> *Date: *Thursday 23 June 2016 at 01:29
> *To: *<users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net
> <mailto:users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>>
> *Subject: *[jsonb-spec users] Re: Public Review
>
> Any chance this page could be updated with a sample Maven
> snippet: http://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink//jsonb/
> <http://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink/jsonb/>? If you don't
> have the resources we could offer help in updating the
> page perhaps even with a nicer logo. What do you think?
>
> On 6/16/2016 8:52 AM, Roman Grigoriadi wrote:
>
> Artifacts has been uploaded to
> https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/eclipse/persistence/jsonb-ri/1.0-SNAPSHOT/.
> Please keep in mind, that besides 1.0-snapshot
> version, implementation work is still in progress.
>
> Roman.
>
> On 06/15/2016 12:02 AM, Dmitry Kornilov wrote:
>
> We haven’t published it yet. There were some
> technical problems with eclipse repository. Roman
> is working on it. I expect it to be done tomorrow.
>
> *From:*Reza Rahman [mailto:reza_rahman_at_lycos.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:58 PM
> *To:* users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net
> <mailto:users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>
> *Subject:* [jsonb-spec users] Re: Public Review
>
> Any updates on publishing the binaries? A number
> of JUGs are interested in adopting the JSR.
>
> On 6/14/2016 5:56 PM, Dmitry Kornilov wrote:
>
> Hi Nathan,
>
> Thanks for your comments. You can find my
> answers inline.
>
> *From:*Nathan Rauh
> [mailto:nathan.rauh_at_us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 10, 2016 10:23 PM
> *To:* users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net
> <mailto:users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>;
> jsr367-experts_at_jsonb-spec.java.net
> <mailto:jsr367-experts_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>
> *Subject:* [jsonb-spec users] Re: Public Review
>
> I'll start off by saying excellent job
> everyone on writing this spec!
> I was proofreading it to catch any possible
> errors and only found a few things that are
> all very minor,
>
> 1.3:
> "Support Support and integration with..."
> should be
> "Support and integration with..."
>
> Fixed.
>
>
> 3.7.1:
> "When only public getter/setter method without
> corresponding field is present in the class, ..."
> should be
> "When only public getter/setter methods
> without corresponding fields are present in
> the class, ..."
>
> Fixed.
>
>
> 3.17.1:
> Figure 2: Example Type resolution is showing a
> Hello World Java program rather than the
> intended example. Does anyone have a copy of
> what the actual example was intended to be or
> do we need to write one?
>
> Fixed.
>
>
> 4.4:
> refers to
> JsonbConfig::withStrictIJSONSerializationCompliance,
> however the method on JsonbConfig is actually
> called "withStrictIJSON".
> Also, this section refers to configuration
> option "jsonb.i-json.strict-ser-compliance",
> but the constant value for
> javax.json.bind.JsonbConfig.STRICT_IJSON is
> "jsonb.strict-ijson".
>
> Fixed. Shorter names are used.
>
>
> 4.5:
> "The name of a parameter can be changed
> annotating given parameter with JsonbProperty
> annotation."
> should be
> "The name of a parameter can be changed by
> annotating the given parameter with the
> JsonbProperty annotation."
>
> Fixed.
>
>
> javax.json.bind.JsonbConfig:
> Given that JsonbConfig.getProperty makes the
> requirement "Attempting to get an undefined
> property will result in a JsonbException being
> thrown", so that you can never have a return
> value for an undefined property name, what is
> the point of having it return Optional rather
> than Object?
> public final Optional<Object>
> getProperty(String name)
> Note that getAtMap() returns property values
> within the map as Object, not Optional. Seems
> like getProperty ought to be the same.
>
> I think a better solution would be to get rid
> of a requirement of throwing an unchecked
> exception if property doesn’t exist in the map.
>
>
> javax.json.bind.adapter.JsonbAdapter
> Sample 2 has
> JsonbAdapter<Box<T>, Integer<T>>
> should be
> JsonbAdapter<Box<T>, Integer>
>
> Agree. Roman will fix it tomorrow.
>
>
> javax.json.bind.annotation.JsonbCreator
> There are couple of minor grammatical errors in
> "Annotation provides way how to use custom
> constructor or factory method to create
> instance of the associated class."
> I'd recommend rewriting it,
> "This annotation identifies the custom
> constructor or factory method to use when
> creating an instance of the associated class."
>
> Agree. Roman will fix it tomorrow.
>
>
> It seems awkward that the spec has two ways to
> set nillable annotatively:
> @JsonbNillable
> and
> @JsonbProperty(nillable=true)
> I understand the two have different targets:
> @Target(value={ANNOTATION_TYPE,TYPE,PACKAGE})
> vs
> @Target(value={ANNOTATION_TYPE,METHOD,FIELD,PARAMETER})
> Would it be clearer to remove nillable from
> @JsonbProperty and just allow @JsonbNillable
> in all of the targets?
>
> I agree. We will remove nilable parameter from
> @JsonbProperty and fix @JsonbNilable targets.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
>
> From: Dmitry Kornilov
> <dmitry.kornilov_at_oracle.com
> <mailto:dmitry.kornilov_at_oracle.com>>
> To: <users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net
> <mailto:users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>>
> Date: 05/26/2016 04:12 AM
> Subject: [jsonb-spec users] Public Review
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> JSONB spec Public Review is posted!
> https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=367
>
> Congratulations and thanks to everyone who
> participated in the spec development! Great job!
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitry Kornilov
> JSONB spec lead
> @m0mus
>