Cosimo Damiano Prete
Cosimo Damiano Prete
> Thanks [@at055612](https://github.com/at055612) for updating the benchmark and sharing the results. > > Despite the better performance of `LongAdder`, I'm concerned it won't work for our use case. From [`LongAdder.sum()`](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/25/docs/api/java.base/java/util/concurrent/atomic/LongAdder.html#sum()):...
Of course I could create a custom serializer and deserializer for this, but it would be just a workaround and it won't really solve the fact that the library is...
No, I'm asking to get the inconsistency in the library to be fixed. I'm not asking for interoperability between Java < 9 and the rest here, but to have the...
> > This shows that the library is inconsistent, since the JDK is the same for both the executions. > > Oh okay then let's first have reproduction without Spring,...
@JooHyukKim here a test with just ObjectMapper: ```java public class ObjectMapperTest { @Test public void shouldAllowMillisPrecision() throws JsonProcessingException { // given Instant instant = Instant.now().with(NANO_OF_SECOND, 1); Instant expected = instant.truncatedTo(MILLIS);...
> Jackson version? (specifically, 2.20.0 or 3.0.0 ?) It's 2.19.2 in the BoM imported by Spring Boot 3.5.6.
> Commenting out or not, is too naive for a hint. > > So when `SerializationFeature.WRITE_DATES_AS_TIMESTAMPS` is.... > > * enabled, the instant is serialized as "1760200459000", and this would...
> Quick note: as Javadocs for `SerializationFeature` say: > > ``` > /** > * Feature that controls whether numeric timestamp values are > * to be written using nanosecond...
> But either way, this is something that was never asked before and there needs to be implementation. So, you don't see the current feature as an half-baked one? Moreover,...
> I don't know what type of software engineering career you had, but I am very surprised that you expect everything to be in perfect, ideal form, without talking about...