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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #8478

Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization

Show key headers only | View raw

On 01.10.2011 14:46, Giovanni Azua wrote:
> Hi again :)
>
> 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?
>
> Three years ago I worked for a "high frequency trading" company and they
> avoided default Java Serialization like "the devil to the cross" this is a
> Spanish idiom btw ... :) due to its latency. However, I must say that their
> remoting framework dated back to the Java stone age and my guess is that the
> default Serialization must have improved over the years; I don't have hard
> numbers to judge though. I remember JBoss Middleware implementation having
> some Serialization framework for this very same reason ... have to check
> that too.
>
> Can anyone advice what would be best than Java Serialization without
> requiring an unreasonably heavy dependency footprint?

Btw, there is a completely different option not mentioned so far: CORBA 
with IIOP which was specifically designed for remote communication.  Of 
course this would mean that you had to exchange your complete 
communication layer - but I wanted to mention it because I believe CORBA 
is used too rarely because it somehow seems out of fashion.  But if you 
look at network bandwidth used I believe CORBA is a pretty good 
contender compared to SOAP for example.

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