Hello Josh,

I'm not strongly against the ordering, but I find using LinkedHashMap risky (there are some users who use extremely large generated schemas, and using LinkedHashMap could cause a significant performance loss for them). So if your usecase is only for "properties", then I suggest adding an ObjectSchemaBuilder#preserveOrder() method that would change the internal representation from HashMap to LinkedHashMap. What do you think about that? Would it be sufficient for your usecase? (By the way I can't promise I will implement it in the near future).

LinkedHashMap generally performs better than HashMap, the only downside is the small amount of additional memory it would use to store the "links". I'd suggest it isn't necessary to "choose one or the other", but a straightforward performance test would answer that question.

Hey Josh, not sure if this will help you but this is how I solved this problem:

import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import org.everit.json.schema.ObjectSchema;
import org.everit.json.schema.Schema;

public class OrderedObjectSchema extends ObjectSchema {

  public static class Builder extends ObjectSchema.Builder {
    private final Map<String, Schema> orderedPropertySchemas = new LinkedHashMap<>();

    public Builder addOrderedPropertySchema(String propName, Schema schema) {
      super.addPropertySchema(propName, schema);
      orderedPropertySchemas.put(propName, schema);
      return this;
    }

    @Override
    public OrderedObjectSchema build() {
      return new OrderedObjectSchema(this);
    }
  }

  private final Map<String, Schema> orderedPropertySchemas;

  /**
   * Constructor.
   *
   * @param builder the builder object containing validation criteria
   */
  public OrderedObjectSchema(Builder builder) {
    super(builder);
    orderedPropertySchemas = Collections.unmodifiableMap(builder.orderedPropertySchemas);
  }

  @Override
  public Map<String, Schema> getPropertySchemas() {
    return orderedPropertySchemas;
  }
}

@hiloboy0119 Thanks -- looks about right to me at first glance. I'll give it a shot when I get a chance.

@hiloboy0119 I think that would be okay as a workaround but I still say it should be updated in the library itself as preserving order is better than random order. I'll make a PR at some point.