Update version of org.json

[carterpage]

As @hertzsprung pointed out, we're running an ages-old version of org.json. We're looking into helping them update the version they have in maven. If that doesn't work, we may need to either fork it ourselves, or look at other libraries. (We chose org.json for it's simplicity and lack of additional dependencies, so we'd like to stick with it if possible.)

[hertzsprung]

I've spoken with Sonatype who suggested I collaborate with the project author. Unfortunately, Douglas Crockford does not wish to work with me to publish new versions of org.json to maven central. We don't know who was responsible for the current mvn packages.

[carterpage]

I confirmed that the latest org.json code fixed #25. Since perhaps @douglascrockford isn't a fan of maven, we could fork and release our own version:

<groupId>org.skyscreamer</groupId>
<artifactId>jsonassert-json</artifactId>
<version>20130317</version>
<packaging>jar</packaging>

This could be a service to other libraries and projects that are frustrated with the lack of maven support for the library. Thoughts?

[hertzsprung]

On 17 March 2013 13:47, Carter Page notifications@github.com wrote:

I confirmed that the latest org.json code fixed #25#25.
Since perhaps @douglascrockford https://github.com/douglascrockfordisn't a fan of maven, we could fork and release our own version:

org.skyscreamer
jsonassert-json
20130317
jar

This could be a service to other libraries and projects that are
frustrated with the lack of maven support for the library. Thoughts?

It's not going to be fun maintaining our own fork, if only because the
source files aren't even in a package structure. I'm also not sure how
we'd get this uploaded to mvn central because we're not the project owner,
and we're not the original artifact maintainer. You could try talking to
Sonatype about this.

[carterpage]

We don't need to maintain the fork. We just publish a snapshot of the library so we can get access to the bug fixes.

JSON uses the MIT license, which is simple and highly permissive, so copyright isn't an issue. The library is going to be called jsonassert-json-20130317.jar, and it will be in the skyscreamer groupid, so I think we avoid the risk that someone thinks we are claiming to be the original project owner. That's Sonatype's main concern, and we'll be careful to avoid that confusion.

If you look at http://www.jarvana.com/jarvana/search?search_type=class&java_class=org.json.JSONObject, you'll see there are already about 2 dozen projects, including Apache Geronimo, that do this. Just none are up-to-date or clean enough for our purposes.

[carterpage]

@sduskis and @cepage, you guys want to weigh in?

[hertzsprung]

Ok, that sounds convincing enough for me :-)

On 17 March 2013 19:20, Carter Page notifications@github.com wrote:

We don't need to maintain the fork. We just publish a snapshot of the
library so we can get access to the bug fixes.

JSON uses the MIT license, which is simple and highly permissive, so
copyright isn't an issue. The library is going to be called
jsonassert-json-20130317.jar, and it will be in the skyscreamer groupid, so
I think we avoid the risk that someone thinks we are claiming to be the
original project owner. That's Sonatype's main concern, and we'll be
careful to avoid that confusion.

If you look at
http://www.jarvana.com/jarvana/search?search_type=class&java_class=org.json.JSONObject,
you'll see there are already about 2 dozen projects, including Apache
Geronimo, that do this. Just none are up-to-date or clean enough for our
purposes.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/26#issuecomment-15028815
.[image: Web Bug from
https://github.com/notifications/beacon/IKuIsTejRivtv8yEN00uaxTWX9QbU64s0agyhN7FdQseioVoEARofV4DnsMnIEzy.gif]

[cepage]

I am also convinced

[DavidBiesack]

There is another org.json in Central - see http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Corg.codeartisans%7Corg.json%7C20130603%7Cjar

<dependency>
<groupId>org.codeartisans</groupId>
<artifactId>org.json</artifactId>
<version>20130603</version>
</dependency>

with description: "Deployed artifact from the Douglas Crockford org.json master branch.". Perhaps that will work.

[carterpage]

Good find! I'll check it out.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:41 AM, David Biesack notifications@github.comwrote:

There is another org.json in Central - see
http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Corg.codeartisans%7Corg.json%7C20130603%7Cjar

org.codeartisans
org.json
20130603

with description: "Deployed artifact from the Douglas Crockford org.json
master branch.". Perhaps that will work.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/26#issuecomment-21489506
.

[hansgru]

Why not simply use http://code.google.com/p/json-simple/ ?

[carterpage]

Unless it is a direct clone or org.json, it will break backwards
compatibility. org.json is used because of it's simplicity and lack of
dependencies but also its adoption rate. If json-simple surpasses it in
the future, I could consider switching at the point of a major release for
JSONAssert.

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Hans notifications@github.com wrote:

Why not simply use http://code.google.com/p/json-simple/ ?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/26#issuecomment-23833307
.

[carterpage]

Replacing json.org with clean-room android JSON due to license issues in 1.4.0.