Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #8477

Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization

Show all headers | View raw

On 01.10.2011 21:35, jebblue wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 21:13:40 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> On 10/01/2011 06:19 PM, Lew wrote:
>>> Giovanni Azua wrote:
>>>> I have this lite Client-Server framework based on Blocking IO using
>>>> classic java.net.* Sockets (must develop it myself for a grad course
>>>> project). The way I am using to pass data over the Sockets is via
>>>> Serialization i.e. ObjectOutputStream#writeObject(...) and
>>>> ObjectInputStream#readObject(...) I was wondering if anyone can
>>>> recommend a Serialization framework that would outperform the vanilla
>>>> Java default Serialization?
>>>>
>>> But you will be transmitting data via a format that omits the object
>>> graph overhead and focuses on just the data to share.  The object-graph
>>> knowledge is coded into the application and need not be transferred.
>>>
>>> XML is awesome for this kind of task.
>>
>> http://www.json.org/ might also be a good alternative which - depending
>> on format etc. - can be less verbose.  See http://json.org/example.html
>>
>
> JSON is convenient for JavaScript heads, it is not human readable,
> this is one reason why XML exists in the first place.

I am not sure why you say JSON is not human readable while XML is. 
Remember: for network transfer you would use the most compressed format 
of either which means that for XML you would not have line breaks and 
indentation.  I'd say an XML on one line with a reasonable complex 
structure is not human readable.

> JSON was
> a mistake, instead of coming up with an arcane hacked syntax
> to replace XML; JavaScript should have been improved to handle
> XML.

That sounds like opinion to me.  Can you provide any real arguments why 
XML should be chosen for as a data transfer format over JSON?

XML does have some overhead and often uses more bytes to represent the 
same structure.

There's also an interesting discussion at stackoverflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2636245/choosing-between-json-and-xml#2636380

Kind regards

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Giovanni Azua <bravegag@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-01 14:46 +0200
  Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 09:19 -0700
    Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-01 21:13 +0200
      Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2011-10-01 14:35 -0500
        Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-02 11:07 +0200
        Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-10-03 11:43 -0700
    Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-10-03 19:24 +0100
      Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-10-04 02:45 -0700
      Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-10-04 08:55 -0700
  Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization markspace <-@.> - 2011-10-01 09:48 -0700
    Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-10-04 02:51 -0700
  Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-02 11:10 +0200
  Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-10-03 19:15 +0100
  Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-10-02 11:50 +0000

csiph-web