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

对于采用Jackson解析json不解 #69

Open
beifengdelei opened this issue May 29, 2013 · 9 comments
Open

对于采用Jackson解析json不解 #69

beifengdelei opened this issue May 29, 2013 · 9 comments

Comments

@beifengdelei
Copy link
Contributor

我自己测试使用系统自有的json解析的速度,要比jackson解析json速度要快写,我是抱着“存在即合理”的想法,所有想听听大牛采用Jackson的原因.... 希望大牛看到后能回复下,先谢谢了

@vincent4j
Copy link
Contributor

在于他的快捷,能快速将json转化成model;但如果json层级复杂的话,就不推荐Jackson,太耗时间,还得针对结构复杂的自己解析。

@beifengdelei
Copy link
Contributor Author

确实将json转换成model速度快,但我自己测试下了 jackson的速度也确实是慢啊 http://www.eoeandroid.com/thread-278953-1-1.html
感谢大牛的回复

@vincent4j
Copy link
Contributor

@com360 @IceskYsl 让负责人来解答你问题,haha;你帖子太给力啦,直接贴log;不错。
对咯,俺菜鸟来着哦。

http://www.eoeandroid.com/thread-278953-1-1.html

@beifengdelei
Copy link
Contributor Author

哈哈 ,同样菜鸟,下载源代码就想着补充下自己哪里不知道的地方,jackson感觉对于开发者来说,解析json代码量更少,但是牺牲了时间,但是对于用户来说,不是很合适

@IceskYsl
Copy link
Member

LZ再测试个fastjson对比下看看~

@vincent4j
Copy link
Contributor

gjson了?我们现在就用这个

@beifengdelei
Copy link
Contributor Author

我这两次测试一下,比较一下 android自身的json 和fastjson , 感谢~

@feicien
Copy link
Contributor

feicien commented May 29, 2013

看提供的数据,fastjson速度最快
在 2013-5-29 下午5:47,"IceskYsl" [email protected]写道:

[image: screen shot 2013-05-29 at 5 42 49 pm]https://f.cloud.github.com/assets/5537/577933/b15a89d8-c844-11e2-8921-d83892743b30.png

ref:
https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki/Staging-Results

https://github.com/alibaba/fastjson/wiki/%E5%90%84%E7%A7%8DJSON%E5%BA%93%E7%9A%84%E6%AF%94%E8%BE%83


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/69#issuecomment-18606079
.

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

4 participants