spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From andy petrella <>
Subject Re: proposal: replace lift-json with spray-json
Date Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:09:05 GMT
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 Pickling and I guess t best the time ran over :-)

 Le 9 févr. 2014 20:50, "Luis Ángel Vicente Sánchez" <> a écrit :

> 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. Right now it's performance is much worse than lift-json (
> but
> that
> would change when they finished parboiled2.
> And alternative could be but you would bring scalaz as a
> dependency.
> 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 (, 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message