Bernardo Sulzbach

This would be very useful to me. I think that (optionally) snapping to plotted points would be amazing, so that the user could measure the variation in the actual data,...

I'm not against the idea, but maybe this does not belong to minimal JSON. As you have shown, your own minimal-json wrapper code can quite easily have a single line...

I want to express my opinion about this. I know I don't **need** to update my dependencies, but this proposal is just wrong. > The whole idea of having a...

> In practice you'd want to avoid it since it'll make your code pretty much unreadable let alone maintainable. Prove your claim. That function could be placed in a top-level...

I beg to differ. Application code should check if foo is there by using `object.get("foo").isNull()` if the system uses `null` to mean unknown (otherwise just compare the `get` result with...

This is an existing and used library. Deployed code relies on it and on its interface. There might be legitimate reasons for changing parts of it, but "it is a...

> I have a object that contains a minimal-json JsonObject as field (...) I understand the issue you are describing. However, I've never considered having a class with a JsonObject...

See the error. [This project supports Java 5](https://github.com/ralfstx/minimal-json/blob/master/com.eclipsesource.json/pom.xml#L24).

I don't want this to pass (I can't see it as part of minimal-json). But just in case it does, in line 59 you could pass the array size to...

About your 3 reasons: > If there is no mapping _functionallity_ (typo), the use of your library is very limited Not it is not. But many developers are not good...