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

GSON lookup implementation and various improvements in Maven POM. #9

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

malexejev
Copy link

Switched to Java7 source and target.
Updated Maven POM file to refine dependencies scope.
Added javadocs generation.
Moved test files to src/test/java.
Removed all binary files from version control.
Removed all project files from version control.

Max Alexejev added 2 commits March 25, 2014 20:00
Switched to Java7 source and target.
Updated Maven POM file to refine dependencies scope.
Added javadocs generation.
Moved test files to src/test/java.
Removed all binary files from version control.
Removed all project files from version control.
@dustismo
Copy link
Contributor

hi @malexejev, thanks for the pull-request. Sorry it took me so long to respond. It looks good, I'm fine with mavenizing it. I'm not sure the best way to handle the json dependancy though. This introduces a hard dependency on GSON, whereas @kenshiro-o is going to introduce a Jackson implementation.

I dont have much experience with maven, is there a good way to have optional dependancies? I'd like to have multiple lookup implementations and let end-users select the one for the json parser they are already using.

@virtuald virtuald mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2014
@virtuald
Copy link

This is a much cleaner merge than the other PR, I'd vote on this one. The other PR should be refactored to multiple requests. I've updated this PR at #11.

@mreiferson
Copy link
Member

see #11

@mreiferson mreiferson closed this Feb 25, 2015
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants