Re: [JSON] Replacing json.org

[Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>]

On Sat, 2016-10-29 at 20:53 +0900, Steven Walters wrote:
> This feels like an "eating your own dog food" scenario, where Sling
> could just switch to using its own developed/maintained commons JSON
> library...
> Or is there something missing from the public conversation as to why
> it's being avoided/not mentioned?

My personal opinion is that we're not in the JSON parsing 'business',
but FWIW we do have the commons.json bundle which provides some basic
JSON parsing capabilities - object mapping excluded.

If we do decide to move away from the org.json bundle then we should
probably reuse an existing library.

Robert

Re: [JSON] Replacing json.org

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Robert Munteanu wrote
> On Sat, 2016-10-29 at 20:53 +0900, Steven Walters wrote:
>> This feels like an "eating your own dog food" scenario, where Sling
>> could just switch to using its own developed/maintained commons JSON
>> library...
>> Or is there something missing from the public conversation as to why
>> it's being avoided/not mentioned?
> 
> My personal opinion is that we're not in the JSON parsing 'business',
> but FWIW we do have the commons.json bundle which provides some basic
> JSON parsing capabilities - object mapping excluded.
> 
> If we do decide to move away from the org.json bundle then we should
> probably reuse an existing library.
> 
Neil Bartlett mentioned at the Apache Felix list a clean room
implementation of org.json:
"The Debian page on this issue links to a cleanroom implementation of the
same api, from Android:
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/libcore/+log/master/json"

So we can solve the problem with Sling's commons json through that code.

And I totally agree that we should stop doing our own json library.

Carsten

 

-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziegeler@apache.org