9 Mar
2012
9 Mar
'12
5:38 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
--
Jérôme Velociter
Winesquare
http://www.winesquare.net/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Jérôme Velociter
Winesquare
http://www.winesquare.net/
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 17:17, Jerome Velociter
<jerome(a)winesquare.net>wrote;wrote:
Personnally I don't have too strong feelings, however, I think that :
* Good performance of the livetable is important. JSON serialization
time might not be that much a big deal compared to SQL time - but in
the end once you got rid of big bottlenecks, the performance of every
link in the chain matters.
* There is support for jackson in Restlet via an extension. This could
help us improve performance of our REST API for JSON
payloads/responses.
* Jackson seems more active
So in the end I tend to be in favor of jackson over json-lib.
There is also GSON that could be investigated. Personnally I've never
worked with it/don't know much about it.
Jerome
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
I
That was my concern, you expressed yourself better than I have.
The question is simply, is Jackson so much better that we want to have
both, or drop some compatibility. On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 16:08, Marius Dumitru
Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
another
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Jerome Velociter
<jerome(a)winesquare.net
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea
> > <mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 14:54, Marius Dumitru Florea <
> >>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> 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
> 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-i…
> -
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?
What about groovy ? the JSONBuilder provided by json-lib is nice to have,
and is one of the motivation of the initial thread.
I am not asking for annoying you, we use all that already in many sites. am not against improving, but we should also be
careful to not break
existing stuffs.
I'm not sure what's the problem/how groovy changes the picture here.
Right now json-lib is bundled with XWiki and used internally, but not
exposed. I don't think bundled jars should be assumed stable over
time. Do we have a rule for this ?
In any case that's not good enough a reason to ditch jackson in favor
of json-lib, IMHO. Worse case, it's an argument in favor of keeping
json-lib in the classpath in addition to whatever other lib we decide
to use - should we decide to use something else than json-lib.
>
> 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/devs@xwiki.org/msg11395.html
>>>>> [2] http://jackson.codehaus.org/
>>>>> [3] http://json-lib.sourceforge.net/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devs mailing list
>>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
>
> --
> Jérôme Velociter
> Winesquare
> http://www.winesquare.net/
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs