Hi, > the JSON support doesn't appear to support data types... >(JsonObject.getProperties returns a String/String map).
Yes, if you need data types, then json.org sounds good to me. But please note the JSON data types are not "good enough" to encode JCR and Oak properties. For example PropertyType.DOUBLE can not be represented as a JSON double, as some values can't be represented. > and org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.commons.json does not only seem to >introduce a "JSOP" dependency It supports JSOP, which is needed by the MicroKernel API, but it's not a dependency (to an external jar file). org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.commons.json is still used, for example in the Document storage. I assume that is as fast or faster than json.org, and it is well tested. I don't see an urgent reason to remove it. Regards, Thomas On 10/03/14 15:12, "Chetan Mehrotra" <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com> wrote: >Looking at its widespread usage I think its correct and maintained. So >+1 for json.org >Chetan Mehrotra > > >On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de> >wrote: >> On 2014-03-10 13:58, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: >>>> >>>> and org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.commons.json does not only seem to >>>> introduce a "JSOP" dependency (aren't we getting rid of that?), but >>>>also the >>>> JSON support doesn't appear to support data types... >>>> (JsonObject.getProperties returns a String/String map). >>> >>> >>> In that case can we use the JSON library from json.org as thats widely >>> used in projects like Sling Felix WebConsole already. So we would not >>> be adding a new dependency there >>> Chetan Mehrotra >> >> >> FWIW, we the oak-blob POM also references json-simple, but it doesn't >>appear >> to be used. >> >> I really don't care what JSON lib we use, but it needs to be correct, >> maintained, and fast. If json.org fulfills these requirements then I'm >>more >> than happy to switch. >> >> Best regards, Julian >>
