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* <eddu.melendez_at_gmail.com>
*_at_eddumelendez*
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Reza Rahman <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 <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
> <nathan.rauh_at_us.ibm.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 10, 2016 10:23 PM
> *To:* users_at_jsonb-spec.java.net; 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>
> dmitry.kornilov_at_oracle.com>
> To: <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
>
>
>
>
>
>