Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: why always rely on Externalizable

Expand Messages
  • Brendan Macmillan
    Hello Nicolas, I sent you a jar with what you needed, and a couple of followup emails. But I haven t had a reply from you. That was all a few weeks ago.
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Nicolas,

      I sent you a jar with what you needed, and a couple of followup
      emails.

      But I haven't had a reply from you. That was all a few weeks ago.

      Perhaps this reply on the email list will reach you.


      Cheers,
      Brendan

      --- In JSX-ideas@yahoogroups.com, "nicolascorreard"
      <nicolas_correard@u...> wrote:
      > Hello,
      > I've been using a trial version of JSX, as part of an IT project
      here
      > in Paris.
      > First thought: great! It does many things that other tools like
      > skaringa were not able to do.
      > Then, we changed most of our objects to Externalizable to speed up
      > serialization. The XML we got was completely different: one big
      ugly
      > byte array. Suprising, but logical: since we broke down the whole
      > serialization all the way to the native type.
      >
      > Hence, my suggestion: provide a way to ignore Externalizable,
      > in the constructors for example:
      > ObjectWriter out = new ObjectWriter(false);
      > ObjectReader in = new ObjectReader(false);
      >
      > This is critical to us: we cannot use JSX as is. If you provide us
      > with a fix to this, we'll use JSX and buy a site (maybe enterprise
      if
      > I convince my boss) distribution license.
      >
      > Thanks.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.