3 ms·
> I'd say if you're looking for super stable libraries I'd argue on a time basis alone to just use core Java then. Thanks for your reply but I didn't understan
by abalone 12y ago
> I'd say if you're looking for super stable libraries I'd argue on a time basis alone to just use core Java then.
Thanks for your reply but I didn't understand this part of it. Core Java doesn't have a lot of this functionality. Are you proposing it would be better to write your own JSON serializer in core Java, for example, than using a battle-tested library like Jackson?
- devonkim 12y agoI'm arguing the opposite - if you want stability and time-proven code, you will find the most boring, standard library possible. So, you'd pick Jackson for JSON serialization over, say, GSON. But taken further why not just go back to C... Or COBOL? We have to trade off some stability through age for some newer code that's got better potential. Reinventing the wheel should be discouraged only on the basis of it not being tested as well in the fires of production use, not so much for being actually redundant. How many of us would write exactly the same hashing library if we were told to do it repeatedly? So in a scenario like being stuck with Java 6 I'd say you could use libraries like Jodatime and Jodd to make up for certain inconveniences, but it's up to you to decide if your application is fine with the AOP in Jodd v. Guice v. Spring v. whatever J2EE standard is trying to catch up after the fact.