instead of assigning you the ticket we can add you as a contributor in the minifi JIRA and then you can assign yourself as you see fit to any tickets. I've just done this so give it a try.
Thanks On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Reynolds, John <jreyno...@integrity-apps.com> wrote: > Marc, > > I went ahead and created a ticket for changing over to RapidJSON where > applicable. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-298 > > Happy to work that if no one else wants to. Would need someone to assign me > to the ticket. > > Cheers, > John > ________________________________________ > From: Marc <phroc...@apache.org> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 9:33 AM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: MiNiFi C++ JSON library efficiency > > Hi Andy, > Perhaps the ease of use was the motivating factor. You bring up an > excellent point, though. The trade off is likely one to make given the > numbers you provided . If you haven't already created a jira ticket to > track this I can. I'm supportive of reviewing alternative dependencies > given constraints, once higher priority work is completed . > > > On May 5, 2017 8:47 AM, "Andrew Christianson" < > andrew.christian...@nextcentury.com> wrote: > > All, > > I noticed that jsoncpp was added as a dependency in MINIFI-274. I'm > currently working a branch with an earlier root which uses RapidJSON. > > What was the motivation behind jsoncpp? Looking at the benchmarks, > RapidJSON is significantly more efficient in terms of both CPU and memory > [1]. The difference is stark: 8ms parsing with RapidJSON vs 166 ms with > jsoncpp; 4,833,344 bytes of memory with RapidJSON vs 24,560,400 bytes with > jsoncpp. > > RapidJSON has a somewhat less easy API, but it is not that difficult. Given > the target environments of MiNiFi, we may want to reconsider the library > used for JSON. > > [1]: https://github.com/miloyip/nativejson-benchmark > > -Andy
