Markus KARG

According to the concencus between both of you, I'd like to kindly ask you to review and accept PR #194. :-)

@rmannibucau Oops actually I completely missed the word "not" in your answer! Sorry for that! Anyways it won't change my PR: To be one safe sid, an adapter vendor has...

@rmannibucau It does not limit use case as long as you don't have to migrate an existing application from Johnzon to Yasson: To be on the safe side, you must...

Personally I have no bias. I'm good with either allowing or disallowing `null`. What I want is just *unambiguous* JavaDoc, Spec and Examples. If JSON-B Committers tells me their *final*...

I marked this PR as a **draft**, as the spec source is not contained. Please tell me if I shall keep it in draft state until the spec source is...

@m0mus Did EF already ask you for your approval of the spec? I was asked weeks ago and it seems nothing happend so far. So how to proceed? Keep the...

@rmannibucau No, it is not. #147 talks about the request for solving the particular problem of *polymorphic* (de)serialization. #182 is a proposed solution for a general API for *partial* (de)serialization....

@rmannibucau There is a huge difference between both issues. #147 only targets in solving the high-level API needed to *declare* polymorphism, so the JSON-B implementation can solve it "under the...

@rmannibucau +1 for what you write about JSON-B.next, but in fact, the discussion in #147 is still open: It is *just* labelled as "Maybe JSON-B.next". So whethere we need the...

Off-Topic: It's a pity that Github does not have sub-issues, so we could span all of these serialization topics under one common umbrella issue.