That's how we have it now. Let's keep that way then. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jacob Wilder < [email protected]> wrote:
> Is there a concrete reason why we can't use Jackson or Gson for > serialization and JSON.simple for everything else? While it isn't the > simplest approach philosophically or with regards to dependencies (mostly > licenses) it would be using the appropriate tool for each job. > > — > Jacob WIlder > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Simple JSON seems to not handle generics well enuf. I guess we need to > take > > a stab at this code and gradually move to Jackson and defer this Jira to > a > > later release. > > > > If it makes it easier to use Gson over Jackson, then let's go for it. > > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > We can just stick with Simple JSON then, I agree that the move to > Jackson > > > is more involved and impacts large swaths of the codebase. > > > > > > Given this I'll go ahead and modify the JsonSerializer to use Simple > JSON > > > and we have one less license to deal with ☺ > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> After working on this for a while now, I'm having second thoughts > about > > >> the > > >> move to Jackson. Here are my concerns; I'd like to know the thoughts > of > > >> the > > >> community on this. > > >> > > >> 1. Jackson has a very different paradigm for how to approach the > > >> serialization/deserialization process than does our current main JSON > > >> workhorse, json.simple. Practically, this means that moving from > simple > > to > > >> Jackson involves writing a *lot* more code to handle straightforward > > >> operations that simple just deals with > > >> > > >> 2. The fact that Jackson objects implement a *very* different response > > for > > >> the toString method than json.simple objects makes finishing this PR > > >> request an exercise in Zeno's paradox: every time I've got the PIRK-13 > > >> code > > >> I'm working on passing all the tests I can accomplish (hadoop and > > >> standalone), a merge of upstream/master results in a silent merge > > >> acceptance of a handful of changes that break everything and have to > be > > >> tracked down again; by the time of their resolution, I must perform > > >> another > > >> merge, and fix a few more bugs... > > >> > > >> 3. It isn't clear to me that the fact that json.simple is no longer > > >> publishing artifacts is a sufficient reason to discard it. I haven't > > >> looked > > >> at the code (https://github.com/fangyidong/json-simple), but it seems > > >> entirely possible that the project hit every feature they intended, > got > > >> the > > >> code base correct, and stopped. If they didn't, the source is > available > > to > > >> contribute fixes to. > > >> > > >> 4. I'll include this benchmark, > > >> http://blog.takipi.com/the-ultimate-json-library-json-simple > > >> -vs-gson-vs-jackson-vs-json/, > > >> which says "simple comes in a close second on both large and small > > files, > > >> whereas jackson is much worse at small files", but! I feel compelled > to > > >> point out that reading the comments, and a quick scan of the first n > hit > > >> on > > >> google, make me think that the tests run there aren't what you'd call > > >> "definitive", or even, perhaps, "accurate", but if you're willing to > > >> overlook these minor flaws ;) it bolsters my position that json.simple > > is > > >> probably good enough especially in light of 1. and 2. above. > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> > > >> Walter > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany < > [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Yes, sorry for the delay. My eyes started wandering over some of > > >> jackson's > > >> > bigger features after I had started JsonNode-ing stuff a while ago. > > I'll > > >> > refocus and put 13 to rest before morning Eastern time Tuesday. > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ellison Anne Williams (JIRA) < > > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13?page=com.atlas > > >> >> sian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel& > > >> >> focusedCommentId=15412160#comment-15412160 ] > > >> >> > > >> >> Ellison Anne Williams commented on PIRK-13: > > >> >> ------------------------------------------- > > >> >> > > >> >> It looks like it will be best to upgrade to Jackson via changing > the > > >> >> current use of JSONObject to Jackson's JsonNode (and, of course, > > >> changing > > >> >> the other read/write methods as appropriate). > > >> >> > > >> >> Walter - Are you still working this? If not, I will pick it up. > > >> >> > > >> >> > Switch from json-simple to Jackson > > >> >> > ---------------------------------- > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Key: PIRK-13 > > >> >> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/PIRK-13 > > >> >> > Project: PIRK > > >> >> > Issue Type: Improvement > > >> >> > Reporter: Chris Harris > > >> >> > Assignee: Walter Ray-Dulany > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> -- > > >> >> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA > > >> >> (v6.3.4#6332) > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
