I guess we could resolve this JIRA as 'Will not Fix' . On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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) >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
