Versions in eclipselink git and OSS maven repo are now synchronized.
Roman
On 06/23/2016 11:35 AM, Roman Grigoriadi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry, it will be fixed next push. Our git repo is outdated one commit
> of deployed version, where group ID has changed.
>
> Roman
>
> On 06/23/2016 03:55 AM, Eddú Meléndez Gonzales wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a concern:
>>
>> Now, the groupId in build.gradle is
>> *org.eclipse.persistence.json.bind* and the artifact has been
>> uploaded to
>> https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/eclipse/persistence/jsonb-ri/1.0-SNAPSHOT/,
>> so according to the url I have to use the following dependency, which
>> works:
>>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.eclipse.persistence</groupId>
>> <artifactId>jsonb-ri</artifactId>
>> <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>> But, if I want to download the code to see current changes I have to
>> change the groupId. Will it be fixed in the future?
>>
>> Can you clarify this, please?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>> *Eddú Meléndez Gonzales*
>> *eddu.melendez_at_gmail.com*
>> *_at_eddumelendez*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com
>> <mailto:reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Any chance this page could be updated with a sample Maven
>> snippet: 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>
>>>> To:
>>>> <<mailto:users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net>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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>