Agree on a Json library

[ezienecker]

I was a bit surprised when I saw that in the project on the one hand Gson and on the other hand org.json.Json is used. I think it would be better to agree on a framework. On the other hand I noticed that the Settings contains logic where I think it would be better in SettingsHandler. It would be easier to map this logic with Gson. According to Gson the following applies:

The default behaviour that is implemented in Gson is that null object fields are ignored. This allows for a more compact output format; however, the client must define a default value for these fields as the JSON format is converted back into its Java form.

Let me know what you think about it

[alallema]

Thanks, @ezienecker, for this discussion. I totally agree with you I think it would be better to get just one JSON handler and it could be Gson. I didn't have too much time to do maintenance on this repo, but I know that at some point it was desired to allow the user to use the handler of his choice. If you want to open an issue it would be great!