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
>> *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
>>
>