Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jil support #33

Open
oliverjanik opened this issue Feb 23, 2016 · 6 comments
Open

Jil support #33

oliverjanik opened this issue Feb 23, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@oliverjanik
Copy link

Would it make sense to to swap out Json.NET for Jil or provide alternative json implementation?

https://github.com/kevin-montrose/Jil

@bchavez
Copy link
Owner

bchavez commented Feb 23, 2016

Hi @oliverjanik ,

Thanks very much for your suggestion. I think you have a good idea. It would be a good thing to allow support for alternative JSON implementations. Currently, the Java driver is exploring something like this too: rethinkdb/rethinkdb#5128

However, currently the driver relies on some Newtonsoft feature-magic (objects like JObject, JArray, and JToken) to get its work done. It would take some effort to re-factor the source to allow multiple JSON implementations, but should be do-able.

EDIT: Requires #77 to be implemented first.

Updated Benchmarks (thanks to @marshall007):
http://theburningmonk.com/2016/01/binary-and-json-benchmarks-updated-4/

@oliverjanik
Copy link
Author

It's good to hear you're open to suggestions.

Newtonsoft is one of the slowest json serializers around and has some crazy baggage (e.g. JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json#525)

@bchavez
Copy link
Owner

bchavez commented Feb 23, 2016

Hey Oliver, yeah. I totally understand. I've heard some arguments on both sides regarding Newtonsoft. Microsoft blessed Newtonsoft as the default JSON ser/des in ASP.NET MVC and it was one reason I picked it as the default here.

Currently, I don't have any immediate needs for an alternative JSON implementation right now, so this is a bit lower priority issue for me. However, I'd gladly help with guidance and accept a PR if you or anyone want to take a stab at it.

Side note: It would be interesting to see an updated version of the benchmarks. Looks like the benchmarks were ran against v6.0.7 some time ago. I think we're at v8+ now. I wonder if Newtonsoft made any progress at closing the gap since v6.0.7.

@jakejscott
Copy link

I think they are always working on improving performance of it http://james.newtonking.com/archive/2015/12/20/json-net-8-0-release-1-allocations-and-bug-fixes

@jakejscott
Copy link

And it's not too bad if you look at some benchmarks (which already look out of date)
http://theburningmonk.com/benchmarks/

@oliverjanik
Copy link
Author

It's less the speed, more the wild and inconsistent API and true WTF moments (like the one I linked to) for me.

Call me sceptical but a library that modifies! my timestamp by just loading json as JObject is an absolute no-go. Moreover there was zero discussion and the issue closed as won'tfix.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants