On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 18:16 +0200, Karl Pauls wrote: > I think we should just switch to xml and be done with it.
I don't think we can drop JSON in the foreseeable future. Clients may choose to switch to XML, but we need to offer comparable performance for those using JSON. Robert > > regards, > > Karl > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > as you all know we had to replace the usage of the org.json library > > due > > to it's license (see SLING-6679). We decided to go with Apache > > Johnzon > > as the replacement. > > > > Now as most of the work is done I did some performance testing, > > mainly > > of the json get servlet, rendering a 2k json response requested by > > 50 > > clients in parallel. Unfortunately it seems that this library is > > causing > > a significant performance degradation. I noticed json responses to > > be > > between 15% and 20% slower. I can't explain what is causing this as > > all > > we do is simply write out json. > > > > So I went ahead and did a quick test by replacing johnson with > > jackson > > and interestingly, this one is in the same range as org.json, > > slightly > > faster even. > > > > Given this, I seriously think we should not use johnson but switch > > to > > jackson. As we have identified all the places, replacing is not one > > of > > the nicest tasks, but it should be doable within a short time > > frame. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Regards > > Carsten > > -- > > Carsten Ziegeler > > Adobe Research Switzerland > > cziege...@apache.org <javascript:;> > > > > > >
