On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Not on the first of April. We are free to drop whatever functionality on that date ;-) regards, Karl > Robert > >> >> regards, >> >> Karl >> >> On Saturday, April 1, 2017, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> >> 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 >> > [email protected] <javascript:;> >> > >> > >> >> > -- Karl Pauls [email protected]
