Matei, sorry if I was unclear: I'm referring to downstream operating system distributions (like Fedora or Debian) that have policies requiring that all packages are built from source (using only tools already packaged in the distribution). So end-users (and distributions with different policies) don't have to build Lift to get the lift-json artifact, but it is a concern for many open-source communities.
best, wb ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matei Zaharia" <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> > To: dev@spark.incubator.apache.org > Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:29:20 PM > Subject: Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json > > Will, why are you saying that downstream distributes need to build all of > Lift to package lift-json? Spark just downloads it from Maven Central, where > it’s a JAR with no external dependencies. We don’t have any dependency on > the rest of lift. > > Matei > > On Feb 9, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Will Benton <wi...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > lift-json is a nice library, but Lift is a pretty heavyweight dependency to > > track just for its JSON support. (lift-json is relatively self-contained > > as a dependency from an end-user's perspective, but downstream > > distributors need to build all of Lift in order to package the JSON > > support.) I understand that this has come up before (cf. SPARK-883) and > > that the uncertain future of JSON support in the Scala standard library is > > the motivator for relying on an external library. > > > > I'm proposing replacing lift-json in Spark with something more lightweight. > > I've evaluated apparent project liveness and dependency scope for most of > > the current Scala JSON libraries and believe the best candidate is > > spray-json (https://github.com/spray/spray-json), the JSON library used by > > the Spray HTTP toolkit. spray-json is Apache-licensed, actively developed, > > and builds and works independently of Spray with only one external > > dependency. > > > > It looks to me like a pretty straightforward change (although > > JsonProtocol.scala would be a little more verbose since it couldn't use > > the Lift JSON DSL), and I'd like to do it. I'm writing now to ask for > > some community feedback before making the change (and submitting a JIRA > > and PR). If no one has any serious objections (to the effort in general > > or to to the choice of spark-json in particular), I'll go ahead and do it, > > but if anyone has concerns, I'd be happy to discuss and address them > > before getting started. > > > > > > thanks, > > wb > >
