xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java
List archive
Re: [XOM-interest] Serializing objects that contain an instan ce of nu.xom.Document, part II
- From: dirk bergstrom <dirk AT juniper.net>
- To: Brendan.Johnston AT wellsfargo.com
- Cc: xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] Serializing objects that contain an instan ce of nu.xom.Document, part II
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:44:09 -0800
On 02/19/2004 02:19 PM, Brendan.Johnston AT wellsfargo.com was heard to exclaim:
> It seems to me that some people are saying:
> XML serialization has certain advantages over Java serialization.
> And others are saying:
> Java serialization is faster than XML serialization
> in a way that is significant for my app.
The way I see it, people are kind of missing the point. This isn't about
the merits of Java serialization vs. XML serialization, or at least it
shouldn't be.
The people asking for Java serialization probably don't really care about
the above argument. They just want to use XOM as the XML package in an
application that *requires* Java serialization (eg. EJB).
It appears that saying "XOM won't be serializable" is equivalent to saying
"XOM can't be used in EJB". This is perhaps a reasonable thing to say,
perhaps not, but it's almost entirely orthogonal to a discussion of which
serialization method is "better".
--
Dirk Bergstrom dirk AT juniper.net
_____________________________________________
Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
-
Re: [XOM-interest] Serializing objects that contain an instan ce of nu.xom.Document, part II,
dirk bergstrom, 02/19/2004
- Re: [XOM-interest] Serializing objects that contain an instan ce of nu.xom.Document, part II, Elliotte Rusty Harold, 02/19/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.