XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo AT metalab.unc.edu>]

At 11:41 AM -0800 2/19/04, Brian Sam-Bodden wrote:
> XOM users,
>   Okay, read the "java rules" section of the "what's
> wrong" presentation. So, no XOM classes are
> serializable. My problem is one of avoiding parsing a
> document more than once. When I was using DOM (yuck!) I
> could do many things with my DOM objects such as hang
> them on a JNDI tree and retrieve them later, pass them
> in JMS messages as Object Messages and other niceties
> that come with being serializable. I'll find a way
> around this but I would still like to understand the
> reasons for not implementing serializable?


XML is itself a serialization format. In fact, it is a much cleaner, 
more interoperable format than Java's object serialization. Using 
object serialization limits you to exchanging data only with other 
Java programs. Without a great deal of care and effort, it limits you 
to exchanging data only with other programs that use the identical 
version of XOM.

XML, by contrast, can be used to exchange data with Python programs, 
DOM programs, Perl programs, C++ programs, C# programs, and far more. 
These programs can use the same or a different version of XOM. They 
can use other APIs like SAX, DOM, JDOM. Even human beings can easily 
read and work with the data using a simple text editor.

Binary formats are bad in general, and Java's object serialization is 
far from the best binary format. Object serialization routinely 
violates access protection, interferes with class loading, breaks 
various design patterns, is slow as spit, and in general causes far 
more problems than it solves. XML is far cleaner, more reliable, more 
robust, and faster. Use XML.
--

  Elliotte Rusty Harold
  elharo AT metalab.unc.edu
  Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
  http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml            
  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA