On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 14:54, Marius Dumitru Florea < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>> >>>>>> Some time ago Jerome Velociter raised a vote [1] for adding a JSON >>>>>> Velocity Tool. The vote passed but the tool wasn't committed. I'd like >>>>>> to do it know (for 4.0M1) with two changes: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Use Jackson [2] instead of json-lib [3] because it has a more recent >>>>>> release >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Isn't json-lib already a dependency available, should we use another one >>>>> ? >>>> >>>> +1 to use only one json lib in xwiki! :) >>> >>> Fine.. since json-lib is already used in public API >>> (com.xpn.xwiki.plugin.packaging.PackageAPI) I'll stick with it. >> >> Jackson is considered faster, by several orders. Some articles/threads >> that talks about it : >> - >> http://www.lshift.net/blog/2011/12/28/benchmarking-simple-json-generation-in-java >> - http://www.sencha.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-94883.html >> > >> It can be a case for Jackson : if we are to use that tool for >> generating livetable values, performance is a big deal. > > That's my use case. I want to refactor the macros from > XWiki.LiveTableResultsMacros to generate the "JSON" in memory (using > actually plain Java data types like maps and lists/arrays) so that I > can adjust it before the response is send to the client. This way I > can avoid duplicating the code from XWiki.LiveTableResultsMacros just > to add a new property to the generated JSON or to modify the value of > an existing property. > > Since json-lib is used only in xwiki-platform-oldcore by the package > plugin I think it's fine to: > > * use Jackson in JSONTool > * when we refactor the package plugin into a component (if we still > needed it at that point) we can also change the code to use Jackson. I > can add a comment in the pom for this so that we don't forget about > it. > > WDYT?
I don't understand. Why not use Jackson for the Package plugin? How hard is this? Both libs are not doing the same thing, is that the problem? There's no API for what is done in the package plugin? (btw why do we need json in the package plugin? :)) Thanks -Vincent > > I'm +1 for this. > > Thanks, > Marius > >> >> my 2 cents >> >> Jerome >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Marius >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2. Add only the toJSON method for now because we can use >>>>>> $escapetool.javascript to accomplish the same result as toValueString >>>>>> >>>>>> Reply quickly if you are against it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Marius >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg11395.html >>>>>> [2] http://jackson.codehaus.org/ >>>>>> [3] http://json-lib.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
