I would avoid copying as long as possible Commented github issue with alternative approach
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Andrea Del Bene <[email protected]> wrote: > I also think that the best solution could be coping what we need from > OpenJson, like we did with the old library. I don't like the idea of coping > code from another project but in our case I think is the best solution. > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Ted wrote: > > > "open JSON is to provide a *temporary* plug compatible replacement", > > "Over > > > the longer term, switching to Jackson is the right thing to do" > > > So maybe Jackson should be used in 8.0.0? > > > > > > > Wicket uses these classes for a very simple need. Even String > concatenation > > would suffice. > > Depending on Jackson will be just a little bit better - Jackson is famous > > with its API breaks in minor releases. If both 2.8.x and 2.3.x are in the > > classpath then the chances of similar breaks are rather high. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Martin Grigorov < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > Please read this discussion at OpenJson issue tracker - > > > > https://github.com/tdunning/open-json/issues/11. > > > > It is related to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6329 > > > > > > > > In my opinion the current solution won't work in the long run. > > > > Maybe we should copy the classes from OpenJson instead of extending > > them. > > > > Having both OpenJson (dependency of Wicket) and the old JSON library > in > > > the > > > > classpath leads to inevitable problems like this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > WBR > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
