Use JSON serialization/deserialization in ReleaseNotesSerializer about shipkit HOT 11 CLOSED

I removed the please contribute label for now if that's ok =). I completely agree that the feature needs to be implemented, though! I penned down the criteria for "please contribute!" label in the README.md.

from shipkit.

Don't you think that Serializer class should not write serialized data to file? In my opinion Serializer class should only return JSONString and some FileWriter could be used to store serialized data into file.
Why? Because now we can't reuse AllContributorsSerializer to implement ReleaseNotesSerializer as ContributionSet is part of ReleaseNotesData.

from shipkit.

@szczepiq it's not done yet. I just made a little part. Think that You should reopen it and I can finish this task completely. Just want to know if this is good way before doing all things.

from shipkit.

Hi again, I want to ask if there is any reason why we using JSON simple library instead of Jackson or something else?
We got to manually format object to strings with this lib, and deserialization of complex structures with collections is getting really complicated.

from shipkit.

Hey! Nice catch! Please suggest an alternative library. You can kick off the discussion here, on our slack or on the mailing list.

One of our goals is to keep the dependencies of library as narrow and as simple as possible to avoid pushing down version conflicts onto our clients (e.g. the cost of reuse...). I suspect that we didn't choose some other library for those reasons :)

from shipkit.

I think that Jacskon is a really good option. We can use ObjectMapper to convert to JSON and back to Java object with given class:

User user = new User();

//Object to JSON in file
mapper.writeValue(new File("c:\\user.json"), user);

And back to Java object:

String jsonInString = "{'name' : 'mkyong'}";

//JSON from file to Object
User user = mapper.readValue(new File("c:\\user.json"), User.class);

Without any casting as in simple JSON or reading field by field. Simple JSON returns JsonObject, JsonArray etc. instead of typed object and we got to do many things manually. I think its good lib for small project when we want to read one json file.

from shipkit.

Dependencies of Jackson:

+--- com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind:2.8.8.1
|    +--- com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations:2.8.0
|    \--- com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core:2.8.8

Dependencies of json-simple:

+--- com.github.cliftonlabs:json-simple:2.1.2

I don't have strong preferences but with Jackson the life is simpler :) We need only remember to use 2.6.6 (05-Apr-2016) version for Java 1.6 compatibility: https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/blob/master/release-notes/VERSION

from shipkit.

@szczepiq whats your opinion? Should I move to Jackson within this issue and replace Simple Json in app?

from shipkit.

We had this discussion about a month ago, and decided against any reflection-based library. One reason is that most of them are much heavier, not only due to transitive dependencies but also the size of libraries themselves (jackson-databind 1.2 MB vs json-simple 17 KB). I'm not sure if that will matter in the long run, but for now we don't have much dependencies and it would be good to keep it that way. Additionally @NagRock serialization/deserialization with jackson is not that straightforward if we want to serialize to file and then deserialize, like with release notes. Since the model is mostly based on interfaces we would have to use some kind of jackson inheritance to implement it.

from shipkit.

So you suggest to continue working on this with json simple? Im ok with that but it is a little bit tedious work.

from shipkit.

Ok, now it can be closed.

from shipkit.