[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       activemq-dev
Subject:    Re: Using JSON-B in ActiveMQ
From:       Jonathan Gallimore <jonathan.gallimore () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-05-10 10:25:48
Message-ID: CAGRgoZiEPg3pR+jkxOtpQrjOMHpPtEEF31Ja22p+hx5hSQmzpg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


When I originally posted, my hope was that Jackson might be able to
implement JSON-B itself. Almost a year on, that feels like it would still
be my favourite approach, but is possibly not realistic. Would the
community be open to an abstraction in ActiveMQ allowing either Jackson, or
a JSON-B implementation to be used?

I'm thinking along the lines of JAX-RS' MessageBodyReader /
MessageBodyWriter - this could be interesting as there has been a proposal
to use it for handling JSON-based messages in Jakarta Messaging:
https://github.com/jakartaee/messaging-proposals/tree/master/jsonb-messages/proposal1

The thought here would be to have two implementations of
MessageBodyReader/MessageBodyWriter (one for Jackson - the default), one
that delegates to JSON-B), and use whichever is configured. It looks like
there are a few places we'd need to do this:

* DestinationsViewFilter
* PartitionBrokerPlugin
* ZooKeeperPartitionBroker
* Partition & Target classes
* PersistenceAdapterView

Does that list sound right, or is there functionality I'm missing in that
list? Does the abstraction sound reasonable, or would you not be in favor?

Thanks

Jon

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:38 AM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback - I'll look at this targeting 5.17!
>
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:32 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 JSON-B using Jackson and targeting 5.17.x
>>
>> Given the popularity of pairing ActiveMQ w/ Camel and CXF, I think
>> staying with Jackson is a good idea and would cause less volatility.
>>
>> > On Jan 28, 2021, at 5:36 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Jon,
>> >
>> > Clearly +1 for me to go using JSON-B.
>> >
>> > However, I will focus this for 5.17.x. I'm working on cleanup, update,
>> etc for this version, so I think it's the good timing to use JSON-B.
>> >
>> > So, +1 to use master (5.17.x) for that. If you can wait a bit, I can
>> merge the first round cleanup (removing leveled, etc).
>> > Else, go ahead, we will rebase.
>> >
>> > My +1
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > JB
>> >
>> >> Le 28 janv. 2021 Ã  11:34, Jonathan Gallimore <
>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Hi All
>> >>
>> >> Just to introduce myself a little, I am one of the contributors to
>> Apache
>> >> TomEE, and we have been embedding ActiveMQ 5 for some time, and have
>> found
>> >> it a really nice solution, in particular enabling users to work with
>> JMS
>> >> with almost no setup.
>> >>
>> >> We do have a desire to slim down our dependencies, and I would like to
>> >> propose that ActiveMQ potentially use JSON-B as opposed to being
>> tightly
>> >> coupled to one specific JSON parsing library.
>> >>
>> >> This has previously been discussed on
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ/issues/AMQ-7072, and it
>> sounded
>> >> like the community was open to using JSON-B, but would strongly want to
>> >> stick with Jackson as the default serializer.
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to have a go at working on this. If I was able to make the
>> change
>> >> to use JSON-B, (and I appreciate that may need work here (which I'm
>> also ok
>> >> to contribute to):
>> >> https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-future-ideas/issues/19. If I
>> could do
>> >> this, and keep Jackson as the default serializer, would this be a
>> >> contribution that the community could consider?
>> >>
>> >> Many thanks
>> >>
>> >> Jon
>> >
>>
>>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]