Hi Robert, Good point about Jackson 3, I agree that we should migrate ahead of Quarkus if possible, and that a code-first approach would make things easier.
That said, it seems that support for Jackson 3 is now deferred to Quarkus 4 [1]. Thanks, Alex [1]: https://github.com/quarkusio/quarkus/issues/52036 On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 3:18 PM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > > Another aspect, although strictly speaking unrelated, is Jackson 3. All > custom Jackson 2 serializers are incompatible with Jackson 3, and some > annotations are different. It is possible to use both Jackson 2 + 3 > annotations in the "code first" approach, and it works fine with Immutables. > > I'd expect Jackson 3 to become a necessity in the near future. For Quarkus, > it was already on the list of ideas for 3.31, but thankfully moved out. > A "code first" approach would save us that headache in the JAX-RS context. > > Side note: it's possible to use both Jackson 2 and Jackson 3 in the same > code base - they can work side by side. > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 3:00 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Dmitri, > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion. > > > > While I have a preference for the code-first approach, I wonder if we can > > easily support the Iceberg REST Spec using this method. I would like to use > > JaxRS annotations, but it might be tricky to cleanly leverage the Iceberg > > REST Spec. > > > > Just my $0.01 > > > > Regards, > > JB > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 5:04 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I believe OpenAPI (REST) interface definitions that Polaris provides are > > > very useful for end users and machine clients. > > > > > > However, I see that server-side code generation leads to duplication > > > between generated code and hand-written code. For example, > > > `PolarisCatalogsApi` is generated, but most of the method signatures in > > > `PolarisServiceImpl` have to be written by hand to match the generated > > > code. > > > > > > I wonder what people think about using direct hand-written service > > classes > > > to connect to REST endpoints via Rs-Api (Jakarta) annotations? > > > > > > I can see that generating service stubs might appear helpful to ensure > > that > > > all API endpoints have code that matches OpenAPI specs. However, we have > > to > > > make tests to verify correct behaviour anyway. Those tests could be made > > > with a generated client and will automatically ensure correct > > hand-written > > > code assuming coverage is good. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dmitri. > > > > >
