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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #8513

Re: Low-latency alternative to Java Object Serialization

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:24:20 +0100, Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>Specifically, i believe 
>that: (a) developing an XML-based transfer format using JAXB will take 
>considerably more effort than using standard serialization

Serialisation handles complex data structures, even loops.  XML is
limited to trees.

Serialisation handles any imaginable data type without extra work. XML
requires inventing an external character representation and a way of
converting to chars and back.

Serialisation is hard to upgrade.  XML is easy. Serialisation pretty
much requires everyone to stay in sync with identical software. XML
allows clients with out of date software, software in other languages,
or even no software at all.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
It should not be considered an error when the user starts something
already started or stops something already stopped. This applies
to browsers, services, editors... It is inexcusable to 
punish the user by requiring some elaborate sequence to atone,
e.g. open the task editor, find and kill some processes.

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