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
> *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
>