You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pirk.apache.org by Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com> on 2016/08/08 20:28:35 UTC
Re: [jira] [Commented] (PIRK-13) Switch from json-simple to Jackson
Yes, sorry for the delay. My eyes started wandering over some of jackson's
bigger features after I had started JsonNode-ing stuff a while ago. I'll
refocus and put 13 to rest before morning Eastern time Tuesday.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ellison Anne Williams (JIRA) <
jira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13?page=com.
> atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15412160#comment-15412160 ]
>
> Ellison Anne Williams commented on PIRK-13:
> -------------------------------------------
>
> It looks like it will be best to upgrade to Jackson via changing the
> current use of JSONObject to Jackson's JsonNode (and, of course, changing
> the other read/write methods as appropriate).
>
> Walter - Are you still working this? If not, I will pick it up.
>
> > Switch from json-simple to Jackson
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > Key: PIRK-13
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13
> > Project: PIRK
> > Issue Type: Improvement
> > Reporter: Chris Harris
> > Assignee: Walter Ray-Dulany
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> (v6.3.4#6332)
>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (PIRK-13) Switch from json-simple to Jackson
Posted by Suneel Marthi <su...@gmail.com>.
I guess we could resolve this JIRA as 'Will not Fix' .
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Suneel Marthi <su...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That's how we have it now. Let's keep that way then.
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jacob Wilder <
> jacobwilder.opensource@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there a concrete reason why we can't use Jackson or Gson for
>> serialization and JSON.simple for everything else? While it isn't the
>> simplest approach philosophically or with regards to dependencies (mostly
>> licenses) it would be using the appropriate tool for each job.
>>
>> —
>> Jacob WIlder
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Simple JSON seems to not handle generics well enuf. I guess we need to
>> take
>> > a stab at this code and gradually move to Jackson and defer this Jira
>> to a
>> > later release.
>> >
>> > If it makes it easier to use Gson over Jackson, then let's go for it.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > We can just stick with Simple JSON then, I agree that the move to
>> Jackson
>> > > is more involved and impacts large swaths of the codebase.
>> > >
>> > > Given this I'll go ahead and modify the JsonSerializer to use Simple
>> JSON
>> > > and we have one less license to deal with ☺
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <
>> raydulany@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> After working on this for a while now, I'm having second thoughts
>> about
>> > >> the
>> > >> move to Jackson. Here are my concerns; I'd like to know the thoughts
>> of
>> > >> the
>> > >> community on this.
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. Jackson has a very different paradigm for how to approach the
>> > >> serialization/deserialization process than does our current main JSON
>> > >> workhorse, json.simple. Practically, this means that moving from
>> simple
>> > to
>> > >> Jackson involves writing a *lot* more code to handle straightforward
>> > >> operations that simple just deals with
>> > >>
>> > >> 2. The fact that Jackson objects implement a *very* different
>> response
>> > for
>> > >> the toString method than json.simple objects makes finishing this PR
>> > >> request an exercise in Zeno's paradox: every time I've got the
>> PIRK-13
>> > >> code
>> > >> I'm working on passing all the tests I can accomplish (hadoop and
>> > >> standalone), a merge of upstream/master results in a silent merge
>> > >> acceptance of a handful of changes that break everything and have to
>> be
>> > >> tracked down again; by the time of their resolution, I must perform
>> > >> another
>> > >> merge, and fix a few more bugs...
>> > >>
>> > >> 3. It isn't clear to me that the fact that json.simple is no longer
>> > >> publishing artifacts is a sufficient reason to discard it. I haven't
>> > >> looked
>> > >> at the code (https://github.com/fangyidong/json-simple), but it
>> seems
>> > >> entirely possible that the project hit every feature they intended,
>> got
>> > >> the
>> > >> code base correct, and stopped. If they didn't, the source is
>> available
>> > to
>> > >> contribute fixes to.
>> > >>
>> > >> 4. I'll include this benchmark,
>> > >> http://blog.takipi.com/the-ultimate-json-library-json-simple
>> > >> -vs-gson-vs-jackson-vs-json/,
>> > >> which says "simple comes in a close second on both large and small
>> > files,
>> > >> whereas jackson is much worse at small files", but! I feel compelled
>> to
>> > >> point out that reading the comments, and a quick scan of the first n
>> hit
>> > >> on
>> > >> google, make me think that the tests run there aren't what you'd call
>> > >> "definitive", or even, perhaps, "accurate", but if you're willing to
>> > >> overlook these minor flaws ;) it bolsters my position that
>> json.simple
>> > is
>> > >> probably good enough especially in light of 1. and 2. above.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thoughts?
>> > >>
>> > >> Walter
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <
>> raydulany@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Yes, sorry for the delay. My eyes started wandering over some of
>> > >> jackson's
>> > >> > bigger features after I had started JsonNode-ing stuff a while ago.
>> > I'll
>> > >> > refocus and put 13 to rest before morning Eastern time Tuesday.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ellison Anne Williams (JIRA) <
>> > >> > jira@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira
>> /browse/PIRK-13?page=com.atlas
>> > >> >> sian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&
>> > >> >> focusedCommentId=15412160#comment-15412160 ]
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Ellison Anne Williams commented on PIRK-13:
>> > >> >> -------------------------------------------
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> It looks like it will be best to upgrade to Jackson via changing
>> the
>> > >> >> current use of JSONObject to Jackson's JsonNode (and, of course,
>> > >> changing
>> > >> >> the other read/write methods as appropriate).
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Walter - Are you still working this? If not, I will pick it up.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > Switch from json-simple to Jackson
>> > >> >> > ----------------------------------
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Key: PIRK-13
>> > >> >> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira
>> /browse/PIRK-13
>> > >> >> > Project: PIRK
>> > >> >> > Issue Type: Improvement
>> > >> >> > Reporter: Chris Harris
>> > >> >> > Assignee: Walter Ray-Dulany
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> --
>> > >> >> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
>> > >> >> (v6.3.4#6332)
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (PIRK-13) Switch from json-simple to Jackson
Posted by Suneel Marthi <su...@gmail.com>.
That's how we have it now. Let's keep that way then.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jacob Wilder <
jacobwilder.opensource@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a concrete reason why we can't use Jackson or Gson for
> serialization and JSON.simple for everything else? While it isn't the
> simplest approach philosophically or with regards to dependencies (mostly
> licenses) it would be using the appropriate tool for each job.
>
> —
> Jacob WIlder
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Simple JSON seems to not handle generics well enuf. I guess we need to
> take
> > a stab at this code and gradually move to Jackson and defer this Jira to
> a
> > later release.
> >
> > If it makes it easier to use Gson over Jackson, then let's go for it.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We can just stick with Simple JSON then, I agree that the move to
> Jackson
> > > is more involved and impacts large swaths of the codebase.
> > >
> > > Given this I'll go ahead and modify the JsonSerializer to use Simple
> JSON
> > > and we have one less license to deal with ☺
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <
> raydulany@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> After working on this for a while now, I'm having second thoughts
> about
> > >> the
> > >> move to Jackson. Here are my concerns; I'd like to know the thoughts
> of
> > >> the
> > >> community on this.
> > >>
> > >> 1. Jackson has a very different paradigm for how to approach the
> > >> serialization/deserialization process than does our current main JSON
> > >> workhorse, json.simple. Practically, this means that moving from
> simple
> > to
> > >> Jackson involves writing a *lot* more code to handle straightforward
> > >> operations that simple just deals with
> > >>
> > >> 2. The fact that Jackson objects implement a *very* different response
> > for
> > >> the toString method than json.simple objects makes finishing this PR
> > >> request an exercise in Zeno's paradox: every time I've got the PIRK-13
> > >> code
> > >> I'm working on passing all the tests I can accomplish (hadoop and
> > >> standalone), a merge of upstream/master results in a silent merge
> > >> acceptance of a handful of changes that break everything and have to
> be
> > >> tracked down again; by the time of their resolution, I must perform
> > >> another
> > >> merge, and fix a few more bugs...
> > >>
> > >> 3. It isn't clear to me that the fact that json.simple is no longer
> > >> publishing artifacts is a sufficient reason to discard it. I haven't
> > >> looked
> > >> at the code (https://github.com/fangyidong/json-simple), but it seems
> > >> entirely possible that the project hit every feature they intended,
> got
> > >> the
> > >> code base correct, and stopped. If they didn't, the source is
> available
> > to
> > >> contribute fixes to.
> > >>
> > >> 4. I'll include this benchmark,
> > >> http://blog.takipi.com/the-ultimate-json-library-json-simple
> > >> -vs-gson-vs-jackson-vs-json/,
> > >> which says "simple comes in a close second on both large and small
> > files,
> > >> whereas jackson is much worse at small files", but! I feel compelled
> to
> > >> point out that reading the comments, and a quick scan of the first n
> hit
> > >> on
> > >> google, make me think that the tests run there aren't what you'd call
> > >> "definitive", or even, perhaps, "accurate", but if you're willing to
> > >> overlook these minor flaws ;) it bolsters my position that json.simple
> > is
> > >> probably good enough especially in light of 1. and 2. above.
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> Walter
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <
> raydulany@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Yes, sorry for the delay. My eyes started wandering over some of
> > >> jackson's
> > >> > bigger features after I had started JsonNode-ing stuff a while ago.
> > I'll
> > >> > refocus and put 13 to rest before morning Eastern time Tuesday.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ellison Anne Williams (JIRA) <
> > >> > jira@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13?page=com.atlas
> > >> >> sian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&
> > >> >> focusedCommentId=15412160#comment-15412160 ]
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Ellison Anne Williams commented on PIRK-13:
> > >> >> -------------------------------------------
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It looks like it will be best to upgrade to Jackson via changing
> the
> > >> >> current use of JSONObject to Jackson's JsonNode (and, of course,
> > >> changing
> > >> >> the other read/write methods as appropriate).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Walter - Are you still working this? If not, I will pick it up.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Switch from json-simple to Jackson
> > >> >> > ----------------------------------
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Key: PIRK-13
> > >> >> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/PIRK-13
> > >> >> > Project: PIRK
> > >> >> > Issue Type: Improvement
> > >> >> > Reporter: Chris Harris
> > >> >> > Assignee: Walter Ray-Dulany
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> > >> >> (v6.3.4#6332)
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (PIRK-13) Switch from json-simple to Jackson
Posted by Jacob Wilder <ja...@gmail.com>.
Is there a concrete reason why we can't use Jackson or Gson for
serialization and JSON.simple for everything else? While it isn't the
simplest approach philosophically or with regards to dependencies (mostly
licenses) it would be using the appropriate tool for each job.
—
Jacob WIlder
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Simple JSON seems to not handle generics well enuf. I guess we need to take
> a stab at this code and gradually move to Jackson and defer this Jira to a
> later release.
>
> If it makes it easier to use Gson over Jackson, then let's go for it.
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > We can just stick with Simple JSON then, I agree that the move to Jackson
> > is more involved and impacts large swaths of the codebase.
> >
> > Given this I'll go ahead and modify the JsonSerializer to use Simple JSON
> > and we have one less license to deal with ☺
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> After working on this for a while now, I'm having second thoughts about
> >> the
> >> move to Jackson. Here are my concerns; I'd like to know the thoughts of
> >> the
> >> community on this.
> >>
> >> 1. Jackson has a very different paradigm for how to approach the
> >> serialization/deserialization process than does our current main JSON
> >> workhorse, json.simple. Practically, this means that moving from simple
> to
> >> Jackson involves writing a *lot* more code to handle straightforward
> >> operations that simple just deals with
> >>
> >> 2. The fact that Jackson objects implement a *very* different response
> for
> >> the toString method than json.simple objects makes finishing this PR
> >> request an exercise in Zeno's paradox: every time I've got the PIRK-13
> >> code
> >> I'm working on passing all the tests I can accomplish (hadoop and
> >> standalone), a merge of upstream/master results in a silent merge
> >> acceptance of a handful of changes that break everything and have to be
> >> tracked down again; by the time of their resolution, I must perform
> >> another
> >> merge, and fix a few more bugs...
> >>
> >> 3. It isn't clear to me that the fact that json.simple is no longer
> >> publishing artifacts is a sufficient reason to discard it. I haven't
> >> looked
> >> at the code (https://github.com/fangyidong/json-simple), but it seems
> >> entirely possible that the project hit every feature they intended, got
> >> the
> >> code base correct, and stopped. If they didn't, the source is available
> to
> >> contribute fixes to.
> >>
> >> 4. I'll include this benchmark,
> >> http://blog.takipi.com/the-ultimate-json-library-json-simple
> >> -vs-gson-vs-jackson-vs-json/,
> >> which says "simple comes in a close second on both large and small
> files,
> >> whereas jackson is much worse at small files", but! I feel compelled to
> >> point out that reading the comments, and a quick scan of the first n hit
> >> on
> >> google, make me think that the tests run there aren't what you'd call
> >> "definitive", or even, perhaps, "accurate", but if you're willing to
> >> overlook these minor flaws ;) it bolsters my position that json.simple
> is
> >> probably good enough especially in light of 1. and 2. above.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Walter
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes, sorry for the delay. My eyes started wandering over some of
> >> jackson's
> >> > bigger features after I had started JsonNode-ing stuff a while ago.
> I'll
> >> > refocus and put 13 to rest before morning Eastern time Tuesday.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ellison Anne Williams (JIRA) <
> >> > jira@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13?page=com.atlas
> >> >> sian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&
> >> >> focusedCommentId=15412160#comment-15412160 ]
> >> >>
> >> >> Ellison Anne Williams commented on PIRK-13:
> >> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> It looks like it will be best to upgrade to Jackson via changing the
> >> >> current use of JSONObject to Jackson's JsonNode (and, of course,
> >> changing
> >> >> the other read/write methods as appropriate).
> >> >>
> >> >> Walter - Are you still working this? If not, I will pick it up.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Switch from json-simple to Jackson
> >> >> > ----------------------------------
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Key: PIRK-13
> >> >> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13
> >> >> > Project: PIRK
> >> >> > Issue Type: Improvement
> >> >> > Reporter: Chris Harris
> >> >> > Assignee: Walter Ray-Dulany
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> >> >> (v6.3.4#6332)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (PIRK-13) Switch from json-simple to Jackson
Posted by Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org>.
Simple JSON seems to not handle generics well enuf. I guess we need to take
a stab at this code and gradually move to Jackson and defer this Jira to a
later release.
If it makes it easier to use Gson over Jackson, then let's go for it.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> We can just stick with Simple JSON then, I agree that the move to Jackson
> is more involved and impacts large swaths of the codebase.
>
> Given this I'll go ahead and modify the JsonSerializer to use Simple JSON
> and we have one less license to deal with ☺
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> After working on this for a while now, I'm having second thoughts about
>> the
>> move to Jackson. Here are my concerns; I'd like to know the thoughts of
>> the
>> community on this.
>>
>> 1. Jackson has a very different paradigm for how to approach the
>> serialization/deserialization process than does our current main JSON
>> workhorse, json.simple. Practically, this means that moving from simple to
>> Jackson involves writing a *lot* more code to handle straightforward
>> operations that simple just deals with
>>
>> 2. The fact that Jackson objects implement a *very* different response for
>> the toString method than json.simple objects makes finishing this PR
>> request an exercise in Zeno's paradox: every time I've got the PIRK-13
>> code
>> I'm working on passing all the tests I can accomplish (hadoop and
>> standalone), a merge of upstream/master results in a silent merge
>> acceptance of a handful of changes that break everything and have to be
>> tracked down again; by the time of their resolution, I must perform
>> another
>> merge, and fix a few more bugs...
>>
>> 3. It isn't clear to me that the fact that json.simple is no longer
>> publishing artifacts is a sufficient reason to discard it. I haven't
>> looked
>> at the code (https://github.com/fangyidong/json-simple), but it seems
>> entirely possible that the project hit every feature they intended, got
>> the
>> code base correct, and stopped. If they didn't, the source is available to
>> contribute fixes to.
>>
>> 4. I'll include this benchmark,
>> http://blog.takipi.com/the-ultimate-json-library-json-simple
>> -vs-gson-vs-jackson-vs-json/,
>> which says "simple comes in a close second on both large and small files,
>> whereas jackson is much worse at small files", but! I feel compelled to
>> point out that reading the comments, and a quick scan of the first n hit
>> on
>> google, make me think that the tests run there aren't what you'd call
>> "definitive", or even, perhaps, "accurate", but if you're willing to
>> overlook these minor flaws ;) it bolsters my position that json.simple is
>> probably good enough especially in light of 1. and 2. above.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Walter
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, sorry for the delay. My eyes started wandering over some of
>> jackson's
>> > bigger features after I had started JsonNode-ing stuff a while ago. I'll
>> > refocus and put 13 to rest before morning Eastern time Tuesday.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ellison Anne Williams (JIRA) <
>> > jira@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13?page=com.atlas
>> >> sian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&
>> >> focusedCommentId=15412160#comment-15412160 ]
>> >>
>> >> Ellison Anne Williams commented on PIRK-13:
>> >> -------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> It looks like it will be best to upgrade to Jackson via changing the
>> >> current use of JSONObject to Jackson's JsonNode (and, of course,
>> changing
>> >> the other read/write methods as appropriate).
>> >>
>> >> Walter - Are you still working this? If not, I will pick it up.
>> >>
>> >> > Switch from json-simple to Jackson
>> >> > ----------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > Key: PIRK-13
>> >> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13
>> >> > Project: PIRK
>> >> > Issue Type: Improvement
>> >> > Reporter: Chris Harris
>> >> > Assignee: Walter Ray-Dulany
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
>> >> (v6.3.4#6332)
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (PIRK-13) Switch from json-simple to Jackson
Posted by Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org>.
We can just stick with Simple JSON then, I agree that the move to Jackson
is more involved and impacts large swaths of the codebase.
Given this I'll go ahead and modify the JsonSerializer to use Simple JSON
and we have one less license to deal with ☺
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> After working on this for a while now, I'm having second thoughts about the
> move to Jackson. Here are my concerns; I'd like to know the thoughts of the
> community on this.
>
> 1. Jackson has a very different paradigm for how to approach the
> serialization/deserialization process than does our current main JSON
> workhorse, json.simple. Practically, this means that moving from simple to
> Jackson involves writing a *lot* more code to handle straightforward
> operations that simple just deals with
>
> 2. The fact that Jackson objects implement a *very* different response for
> the toString method than json.simple objects makes finishing this PR
> request an exercise in Zeno's paradox: every time I've got the PIRK-13 code
> I'm working on passing all the tests I can accomplish (hadoop and
> standalone), a merge of upstream/master results in a silent merge
> acceptance of a handful of changes that break everything and have to be
> tracked down again; by the time of their resolution, I must perform another
> merge, and fix a few more bugs...
>
> 3. It isn't clear to me that the fact that json.simple is no longer
> publishing artifacts is a sufficient reason to discard it. I haven't looked
> at the code (https://github.com/fangyidong/json-simple), but it seems
> entirely possible that the project hit every feature they intended, got the
> code base correct, and stopped. If they didn't, the source is available to
> contribute fixes to.
>
> 4. I'll include this benchmark,
> http://blog.takipi.com/the-ultimate-json-library-json-
> simple-vs-gson-vs-jackson-vs-json/,
> which says "simple comes in a close second on both large and small files,
> whereas jackson is much worse at small files", but! I feel compelled to
> point out that reading the comments, and a quick scan of the first n hit on
> google, make me think that the tests run there aren't what you'd call
> "definitive", or even, perhaps, "accurate", but if you're willing to
> overlook these minor flaws ;) it bolsters my position that json.simple is
> probably good enough especially in light of 1. and 2. above.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Walter
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, sorry for the delay. My eyes started wandering over some of
> jackson's
> > bigger features after I had started JsonNode-ing stuff a while ago. I'll
> > refocus and put 13 to rest before morning Eastern time Tuesday.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ellison Anne Williams (JIRA) <
> > jira@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13?page=com.atlas
> >> sian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&
> >> focusedCommentId=15412160#comment-15412160 ]
> >>
> >> Ellison Anne Williams commented on PIRK-13:
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> It looks like it will be best to upgrade to Jackson via changing the
> >> current use of JSONObject to Jackson's JsonNode (and, of course,
> changing
> >> the other read/write methods as appropriate).
> >>
> >> Walter - Are you still working this? If not, I will pick it up.
> >>
> >> > Switch from json-simple to Jackson
> >> > ----------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > Key: PIRK-13
> >> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13
> >> > Project: PIRK
> >> > Issue Type: Improvement
> >> > Reporter: Chris Harris
> >> > Assignee: Walter Ray-Dulany
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> >> (v6.3.4#6332)
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (PIRK-13) Switch from json-simple to Jackson
Posted by Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com>.
After working on this for a while now, I'm having second thoughts about the
move to Jackson. Here are my concerns; I'd like to know the thoughts of the
community on this.
1. Jackson has a very different paradigm for how to approach the
serialization/deserialization process than does our current main JSON
workhorse, json.simple. Practically, this means that moving from simple to
Jackson involves writing a *lot* more code to handle straightforward
operations that simple just deals with
2. The fact that Jackson objects implement a *very* different response for
the toString method than json.simple objects makes finishing this PR
request an exercise in Zeno's paradox: every time I've got the PIRK-13 code
I'm working on passing all the tests I can accomplish (hadoop and
standalone), a merge of upstream/master results in a silent merge
acceptance of a handful of changes that break everything and have to be
tracked down again; by the time of their resolution, I must perform another
merge, and fix a few more bugs...
3. It isn't clear to me that the fact that json.simple is no longer
publishing artifacts is a sufficient reason to discard it. I haven't looked
at the code (https://github.com/fangyidong/json-simple), but it seems
entirely possible that the project hit every feature they intended, got the
code base correct, and stopped. If they didn't, the source is available to
contribute fixes to.
4. I'll include this benchmark,
http://blog.takipi.com/the-ultimate-json-library-json-simple-vs-gson-vs-jackson-vs-json/,
which says "simple comes in a close second on both large and small files,
whereas jackson is much worse at small files", but! I feel compelled to
point out that reading the comments, and a quick scan of the first n hit on
google, make me think that the tests run there aren't what you'd call
"definitive", or even, perhaps, "accurate", but if you're willing to
overlook these minor flaws ;) it bolsters my position that json.simple is
probably good enough especially in light of 1. and 2. above.
Thoughts?
Walter
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, sorry for the delay. My eyes started wandering over some of jackson's
> bigger features after I had started JsonNode-ing stuff a while ago. I'll
> refocus and put 13 to rest before morning Eastern time Tuesday.
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ellison Anne Williams (JIRA) <
> jira@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13?page=com.atlas
>> sian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&
>> focusedCommentId=15412160#comment-15412160 ]
>>
>> Ellison Anne Williams commented on PIRK-13:
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> It looks like it will be best to upgrade to Jackson via changing the
>> current use of JSONObject to Jackson's JsonNode (and, of course, changing
>> the other read/write methods as appropriate).
>>
>> Walter - Are you still working this? If not, I will pick it up.
>>
>> > Switch from json-simple to Jackson
>> > ----------------------------------
>> >
>> > Key: PIRK-13
>> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIRK-13
>> > Project: PIRK
>> > Issue Type: Improvement
>> > Reporter: Chris Harris
>> > Assignee: Walter Ray-Dulany
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
>> (v6.3.4#6332)
>>
>
>