Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

gt;>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Will Benton >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Matei, sorry if I was unclear: I'm referring to downstream operating >>>>>> system distributions (like Fedora or Debian) that have policies >>

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

eam 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 (an

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

iring >> >> 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 concer

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

As far as I understand, json4s attempts to do this by providing a single interface for users where the underlying JSON parser is pluggable. Currently, there are lift-json (called "native") and jackson plugins, and we are using the latter in the current PR. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Pascal

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

Yup; you're right: https://github.com/json4s/json4s/blob/3.2.6_2.10/project/Dependencies.scala The older deps are only in use in examples/benchmarking. All good. — p...@mult.ifario.us | Multifarious, Inc. | http://mult.ifario.us/ On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Aaron Davidson wrote: > Th

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

I have one question : isn't it possible to abstract a bit and not depend on a given json implementation as this is still a moving target? Regards Pascal Le 12 févr. 2014 20:30, "Paul Brown" a écrit : > Hi, Aaron -- > > I can't speak to issues relevant to Spark, but it looks like json4s is > curr

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

The version of json4s we're using (3.2.6 in the 2.10 branch) does seem to depend on Jackson 2.3.0 and Scala 2.10.0: http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.json4s/json4s-jackson_2.10/3.2.6 On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Paul Brown wrote: > Hi, Aaron -- > > I can't speak to issues relevant to S

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

Hi, Aaron -- I can't speak to issues relevant to Spark, but it looks like json4s is currently using the Jackson Scala module 2.1.3 and Scala 2.9.2. There have been quite a few significant changes to the Scala module and underpinnings between the 2.1.x and 2.3.x series, but I can't speak to how th

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

Will, thanks for the clarifications. I think Spark's main use-case is "warm, small inputs" right now, but the change seems reasonable to me nevertheless. Paul, do you know if there are any issues relevant to Spark that we need from 2.3.2? We would also have to wait for json4s to release a new vers

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

And, with my FasterXML hat on, if you ask, you'll find the Jackson folks will turn around issues quickly. FWIW, there is a full-suite Jackson 2.3.2 release rolling right up if you wait a couple of days to pull that in. -- Paul — p...@mult.ifario.us | Multifarious, Inc. | http://mult.ifario.us/

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

- Original Message - > I am not sure I fully understand this reasoning. I imagine that lift-json > is only one of hundreds of packages that would have to be built if you > wanted to build all of Spark's transitive dependencies from source. This is absolutely true. However, many of Spark'

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

ource communities. > > best, > wb > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Matei Zaharia" > > To: dev@spark.incubator.apache.org > > Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:29:20 PM > > Subject: Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json > > > &

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

munities. > >> > >> best, > >> wb > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> > From: "Matei Zaharia" > >> > To: dev@spark.incubator.apache.org > >> > Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:29:20 PM

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

in a PR for further discussion later tonight or tomorrow. best, wb - Original Message - > From: "Evan Chan" > To: dev@spark.incubator.apache.org > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:31:55 PM > Subject: Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json > > By t

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

gt;> wb >> >> >> - Original Message ----- >> > From: "Matei Zaharia" >> > To: dev@spark.incubator.apache.org >> > Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:29:20 PM >> > Subject: Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json >> &g

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

Zaharia" > > 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 > > Lif

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

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 o

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

The JSON handling in the Rapture I/O library is also pretty interesting, but I have no idea what its performance now is or is likely to be, and code maturity is an issue with this project. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Pascal Voitot Dev < pascal.voitot@gmail.

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

Hey andy ;) pickling would be cool for raw serialization/deserialization (not custom validations naturally). Anyway, as said in a previous mail on this mailing list, pickling can't be integrated now until we modify serializers to carry more type information so that pickling macros can be compiled.

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

Hi, I'm one of the play-json developer and I'm advocating for making it an completely independent library outside of Play (it's already independent of Play but it's still delivered as a module of Play) and integrating useful tooling I've been developing last year (JsZipper + Json interpolators). W

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 wro

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

I could take a look on how lift-json is used in spark and compare it to argonaut.io. That would be a nice exercise as I still haven't played with json in spark. On 9 Feb 2014 20:12, "Will Benton" wrote: > - Original Message - > > > spray-json only relies on parboiled, a library mantained

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

Thanks; I'll take a look! - Original Message - > From: "andy petrella" > To: dev@spark.incubator.apache.org > Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:09:05 PM > Subject: Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json > > Pickling ? > At least, Heather

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

- Original Message - > spray-json only relies on parboiled, a library mantained by the spray-team > itself. Right now it's performance is much worse than lift-json ( > http://engineering.ooyala.com/blog/comparing-scala-json-libraries) but that > would change when they finished parboiled2.

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

Pickling ? At least, Heather did some benchmarks as well and the computability plus its automation thanks to macro are two encouraging features. Also, it is low level enough to allow some de/serialisation optimization. The ooyala blog doesn't include it already, but I know his author knows about P

Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

spray-json future is not clear as spray is going to become akka-http and the spray team is still deciding the future of spray-json... it may stay or it may be combined with play-json to create a better library. spray-json only relies on parboiled, a library mantained by the spray-team itself. Righ

proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json

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 un