Use OSGi ready org.json dependency about jackson-datatype-json-org

[cowtowncoder]

Hmmh. This could make sense; I am only slightly concerned about backwards compatibility. But this can definitely be done for 2.4?

[laszlohordos]

This is the very same jar as the original org.json:json:20131018 except it was repackaged with different manifest file and it was deployed under different maven id. This is just a suggestion to improve this library and avoid the warning in IDE about a not OSGi compatible dependence.

I could only imagine one problem. If this dependency used in a project along with other dependencies which depends on org.json:json because the very same jar will be added twice. This is most likely valid only if it's used in non OSGi environment because in OSGi environment the project very likely have this in the Pom file:

I looked for other JSON packages in Maven but to me this one looks the preferred one because it has the source package too.

Before in OSGi project:

<dependency>
    <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.datatype</groupId>
    <artifactId>jackson-datatype-json-org</artifactId>
    <version>2.3.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
    <excludes>
        <exclude>
            <groupId>org.json</groupId>
            <artifactId>json</artifactId>
        </exclude>
    </excludes>
</dependency>
<dependency>
    <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.bundles</groupId>
    <artifactId>json</artifactId>
    <version>20090211_1</version>
</dependency>

This change makes this unnecessary any more. If someone want's to use the original org.json:json because multiple other project refers to that one then they must use this exclusion.

After:

<dependency>
    <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.datatype</groupId>
    <artifactId>jackson-datatype-json-org</artifactId>
    <version>2.3.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
    <excludes>
        <exclude>
            <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.bundles</groupId>
            <artifactId>json</artifactId>
        </exclude>
    </excludes>
</dependency>

[cowtowncoder]

Right, I am not concerned about package not being perfectly fine, but about duplicate instances; which may or may not be a real problem (quite possibly not since contents are identical or at least compatible).

I think I can make this change for 2.4, and we can branch version after 2.3.1 release that will be done soon.