Hi, > If you do not mind updating the version of fastjson, ignore this issue anyhow...
it does not depend on my favor, but which is more suitable.. I just googled some reports and yes many reports say "fastjson devotes to the speed but sacrifices many checks"... So how about Jackson? Sounds it is faster than Gson and stable enough [1] [2] (two Chinese blogs)? [1] https://segmentfault.com/a/1190000020504347 [2] https://www.xncoding.com/2018/01/09/java/jsons.html Best, ----------------------------------- Xiangdong Huang School of Software, Tsinghua University 黄向东 清华大学 软件学院 yuqi (Jira) <j...@apache.org> 于2020年9月13日周日 上午10:57写道： > > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IOTDB-892?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17194919#comment-17194919 > ] > > yuqi commented on IOTDB-892: > ---------------------------- > > > I know this year there is a hot bug in fastjson as it may deserialize > some harmful beans > > I do think this reason is enough to abandon fastjosn if 's buggy and need > to be frequently updated. > stable and reliable is more than the so called 'fast', that is why > fastjson is rarely used in the apache soft word > > If you do not mind updating the version of fastjson, ignore this issue > anyhow... > > > Replace fastjson with Gson > > -------------------------- > > > > Key: IOTDB-892 > > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IOTDB-892 > > Project: Apache IoTDB > > Issue Type: Bug > > Reporter: yuqi > > Priority: Critical > > Labels: pull-request-available > > > > As fas as we know, fastjson is not stable and unreliable, So, we should > remove fast json dependency > > > > -- > This message was sent by Atlassian Jira > (v8.3.4#803005) >
