Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #8698

Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!usenet.ukfsn.org!not-for-mail
From	Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization
Date	Sun, 2 Oct 2011 11:50:32 +0000 (UTC)
Organization	UK Free Software Network
Lines	20
Message-ID	<j69j68$ren$1@localhost.localdomain> (permalink)
References	<CAACD85F.81B3%bravegag@hotmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host	84.45.235.129
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
X-Trace	localhost.localdomain 1317556232 28119 84.45.235.129 (2 Oct 2011 11:50:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	usenet@localhost.localdomain
NNTP-Posting-Date	Sun, 2 Oct 2011 11:50:32 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent	Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 30dc37b master)
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:8698

Show key headers only | View raw

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:46:55 +0200, Giovanni Azua wrote:

> 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.
>
If low latency and low overheads on transmitted messages are major 
considerations, but you want to use a standard format, then direct human 
readability (i.e. by inspection rather than by automated decoding into a 
human-readable format) may become somewhat lower priority.

In this situation its well worth considering ASN.1, which is widely used 
within telcos for inter-process communication. The Apache Foundation has 
a Java package that handles ASN.1 encoding and decoding.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous 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