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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

rapidjson v.s. nlohmannjson #4143

Open
yecol opened this issue Aug 15, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

rapidjson v.s. nlohmannjson #4143

yecol opened this issue Aug 15, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
@zhanglei1949

Comments

@yecol
Copy link
Collaborator

yecol commented Aug 15, 2024

For the same purpose, it is very wired to use two different json libraries in a single repo.

@zhanglei1949, as the one introducing the second json lib, you are obligated to compare the two libs and:

  • either give strong support to unified to nlohmann json, and change all rapidjson usage.
  • or unified to use rapidjson.

P.S. I will add a CI or post-commit hook to ask every PR explicitly to declare when introducing new third-party dependencies.
@zhanglei1949
Copy link
Collaborator

I find nlohmann json easy to use, but rapidjson offers better performance. We should consider switching to rapidjson.

@yqylh yqylh mentioned this issue Aug 30, 2024
Merged
zhanglei1949 added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 11, 2024
@yqylh @zhanglei1949
refactor(interactive): Replacing nlohmann-json with rapidjson (#4194)
405cc52 
## What do these changes do?

Use Rapidjson rather than nlohmann-json in Interactive.
#4143

---------

Co-authored-by: xiaolei.zl <xiaolei.zl@alibaba-inc.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@zhanglei1949 zhanglei1949

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@yecol @zhanglei1949