No worry! I didn't want to be too harsh too :D upper-case was just to make it clear!
Pascal On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Evan Chan <e...@ooyala.com> wrote: > Pascal, > > Ah, I stand corrected, thanks. > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Pascal Voitot Dev > <pascal.voitot....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Evan, > > > > Excuse me but that's WRONG that play-json pulls all play deps! > > > > PLAY/JSON has NO HEAVY DEP ON PLAY! > > > > I personally worked to make it an independent module in play! > > So play/json has just one big dep which is Jackson! > > > > I agree that jackson is the right way to go as a beginning. > > But for scala developers, a higher thin layer like play/json is useful to > > bring typesafety... > > > > Pascal > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Evan Chan <e...@ooyala.com> wrote: > > > >> By the way, I did a benchmark on JSON parsing performance recently. > >> Based on that, spray-json was about 10x slower than the Jackson-based > >> parsers. I recommend json4s-jackson, because jackson is almost > >> certainly already a dependency of Sparks (many other Java libraries > >> use it), so the dependencies are very lightweight. I didn't > >> benchmark Argonaut or play-json, partly because play-json pulled in > >> all the Play dependencies, tho as someone else commented in this > >> thread, they plan to split it out. > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Pascal Voitot Dev > >> <pascal.voitot....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi again, > >> > > >> > If spark just need Json with serialization/deserialization of basic > >> > structures and some potential simple validations for webUI, let's > remind > >> > that play/json (without any other dependency than Jackson) is about > >> 200-300 > >> > lines of code... the only dependency is jackson which is the best json > >> > parser that I know. The rest of code is about typesafety & > composition... > >> > If Spark need some json veryveryvery performant JSON > (de)serialization, > >> we > >> > will have to look on things like pickling and potentially some > streaming > >> > parsers (I think this is a domain under work right now...) > >> > > >> > Pascal > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Will Benton <wi...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> 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 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> Evan Chan > >> Staff Engineer > >> e...@ooyala.com | > >> > > > > -- > -- > Evan Chan > Staff Engineer > e...@ooyala.com | >
