> the initial aim of this issue is
> to remove fastjson dependency and we will not pay to much time on the bug
> track of fastjson latter.
yes, agree.
Best,
---
Xiangdong Huang
School of Software, Tsinghua University
黄向东
清华大学 软件学院
Qi Yu 于2020年9月13日周日
Both jackson and gson is to OK i think, the initial aim of this issue is
to remove fastjson dependency and we will not pay to much time on the bug
track of fastjson latter.
Xiangdong Huang 于2020年9月13日周日 上午11:03写道：
> Hi,
>
> > If you do not mind updating the version of fastjson, ignore this
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
