Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:10:07 +0200 Lines: 37 Message-ID: <9eqo3fFqreU1@mid.individual.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net HLBeO2vzMzwMHLRnhWE4/grenP1xtx04uF2I+M4bAmLDVp5YI= Cancel-Lock: sha1:ijjCpg63zwsJ6xVU1VOpxyz74a4= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 111001-1, 01.10.2011), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:8478 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/