[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1126?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13805774#comment-13805774
]
Doug Cutting commented on AVRO-1126:
------------------------------------
Android's json libraries do not implement a standard, abstract API.
The javax.json glassfish implementation looks to be a considerably smaller than
Jackson. So switching to using the javax.json API for parsing & printing JSON
should permit one to choose between Jackson and at least one smaller
implementation, but not the implementation built into Android.
Note that this is separate from the representation used for default values in
Avro's public API. For that, I'm currently leaning towards something like
Map<String,Object>, etc.
> Upgrade to Jackson 2+
> ---------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-1126
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1126
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: java
> Reporter: James Tyrrell
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Quite annoyingly with Jackson 2+ the base package name has changed from
> org.codehaus.jackson to com.fasterxml.jackson so in addition to changing the
> dependencies from:
> {code:xml}
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.codehaus.jackson</groupId>
> <artifactId>jackson-core-asl</artifactId>
> <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.codehaus.jackson</groupId>
> <artifactId>jackson-mapper-asl</artifactId>
> <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> {code}
> to:
> {code:xml}
> <dependency>
> <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId>
> <artifactId>jackson-core</artifactId>
> <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId>
> <artifactId>jackson-databind</artifactId>
> <version>${jackson.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> {code}
> the base package in the code needs to be updated. More info can be found
> [here|http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonUpgradeFrom19To20], I am happy to do
> the work just let me know what is preferable i.e. should I just attach a
> patch to this issue?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
