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

Were you mislead by "to XML"?

Expand Messages
  • bren@mail.csse.monash.edu.au
    Hi everyone and Faustas, Sorry, I think I totally misunderstood you! You were actually asking if JSX only a writer - if it was only Java Serialization to
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 1, 2001
      Hi everyone and Faustas,

      Sorry, I think I totally misunderstood you! You were actually
      asking if JSX only a writer - if it was only Java Serialization
      "to" XML, and did not read in XML or parse it.

      In fact, JSX does both - it writes and reads, just like Java's
      own Serialization.

      I am now thinking that the name "Java Serialization _to_ XML" may
      have mislead many people. Can anyone else say if they were mislead
      at first?

      This is quite a serious misunderstanding, as parsing is usually the
      harder bit!

      Any suggestions for simple mod to clearify the name? I can only
      think of:
      Java Serialization to/from XML
      Java (de)Serialization to XML

      The "Serialization" in the original name refers to Java's
      Serialization API - which of course is read/write. Unfortunately,
      "serialization" also has a generic meaning, of writing in a serial
      format, which the "to XML" also suggests...

      Maybe I can set up a poll for this, if we have several suggestions?
      It's important to keep the acronym "JSX", but it's open apart from
      that...


      Cheers,
      Brendan
      > > do you have any plans to implement DOM searialization?
      > Not as yet...
      >
      > > If I understand correctly, right now the XML serialization is
      > > being done to the PrintWriter only.
      > Yes, that's right.
      >
      > > Since the XML produced by JSX sooner or later gets parsed,
      > > it would save some CPU cycles to present it in DOM form.
      > I'm missing something here. If we save the XML to a file for
      > persistence or config, or we send it over the wire, DOM isn't used
      > at all.
      ...and now we see the something I was missing... ;-)

      > However, if we needed to further parse the JSX output, and we were
      > going to do it with DOM, then I agree that some cycles would be
      > solved. In that case, the DOM becomes the interchange format,
      > rather than XML itself.
      >
      > As for adding it - it's a good idea, but would require a pretty
      > serious re-writing, I would guess. Since a rewrite is coming up,
      > it might be possible to integrate it then...
      >
      > Have a great day!
      >
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Brendan
    • Faustas Zilinskas
      Brendon, you understood me correctly. I m looking for the code that serializes my class to the DOM tree. I intend to feed that DOM tree to the XSL
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 1, 2001
        Brendon,
         
        you understood me correctly. I'm looking for the code that serializes my class to the DOM tree. I intend to feed that DOM tree to the XSL transformation. I think that feeding just XML string is slower, because (I think) XSLT internally still parses it into DOM.
         
        Faustas
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: bren@...
        Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 5:02 AM
        Subject: [JSX-ideas] Were you mislead by "to XML"?

        Hi everyone and Faustas,

        Sorry, I think I totally misunderstood you!  You were actually
        asking if JSX only a writer - if it was only Java Serialization
        "to" XML, and did not read in XML or parse it.

        In fact, JSX does both - it writes and reads, just like Java's
        own Serialization.

        I am now thinking that the name "Java Serialization _to_ XML" may
        have mislead many people.  Can anyone else say if they were mislead
        at first?

        This is quite a serious misunderstanding, as parsing is usually the
        harder bit!

        Any suggestions for simple mod to clearify the name?  I can only
        think of:
          Java Serialization to/from XML
          Java (de)Serialization to XML

        The "Serialization" in the original name refers to Java's
        Serialization API - which of course is read/write.  Unfortunately,
        "serialization" also has a generic meaning, of writing in a serial
        format, which the "to XML" also suggests...

        Maybe I can set up a poll for this, if we have several suggestions?
        It's important to keep the acronym "JSX", but it's open apart from
        that...


        Cheers,
        Brendan
        > > do you have any plans to implement DOM searialization?
        > Not as yet...
        >
        > > If I understand correctly, right now the XML serialization is
        > > being done to the PrintWriter only.
        > Yes, that's right.
        >
        > > Since the XML produced by JSX sooner or later gets parsed,
        > > it would save some CPU cycles to present it in DOM form.
        > I'm missing something here.  If we save the XML to a file for
        > persistence or config, or we send it over the wire, DOM isn't used
        > at all.
        ...and now we see the something I was missing... ;-)

        > However, if we needed to further parse the JSX output, and we were
        > going to do it with DOM, then I agree that some cycles would be
        > solved.  In that case, the DOM becomes the interchange format,
        > rather than XML itself.
        >
        > As for adding it - it's a good idea, but would require a pretty
        > serious re-writing, I would guess.  Since a rewrite is coming up,
        > it might be possible to integrate it then...
        >
        > Have a great day!
        >
        >
        > Cheers,
        > Brendan



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        JSX-ideas-unsubscribe@egroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • bren@mail.csse.monash.edu.au
        ... OK - it was this sentence that confused me: Since the XML produced by JSX sooner or later gets parsed, it would save some CPU cycles to present it in DOM
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 1, 2001
          --- In JSX-ideas@y..., "Faustas Zilinskas" <fzilin@y...> wrote:
          > Brendon,
          >
          > you understood me correctly.
          OK - it was this sentence that confused me:
          "Since the XML produced by JSX sooner or later gets parsed,
          it would save some CPU cycles to present it in DOM form."
          Yes, it gets parsed, but no, it wouldn't save any CPU cycles,
          because JSX doesn't use a DOM tree.

          > I'm looking for the code that serializes my class to the DOM
          > tree.
          Unfortunately, you won't find it - JSX doesn't use a DOM tree.
          We'd have to add code to explicitly create one.

          In the rewrite I mentioned, JSX will use SAX for parsing - and it
          would make sense to add an option to construct a DOM tree instead
          of writing a stream, as you suggest (although JSX wouldn't actually
          use this itself - purely a user convenience).

          > I intend to feed that DOM tree to the XSL transformation. I think
          > that feeding just XML string is slower, because (I think) XSLT
          > internally still parses it into DOM.
          Yes, I think you are right that XSLT uses a DOM (not positive, tho).

          But, taking a wider view, how much of a practical problem is
          slowness for your application? Granted, an elegant solution is
          always more attractive (and the one you suggest of passing a DOM
          directly to XSLT is more elegant), but because there are so many
          other competing considerations, we have to assign priorities
          based on practical importance.

          Brendan

          >
          > Faustas
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: bren@m...
          > To: JSX-ideas@y...
          > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 5:02 AM
          > Subject: [JSX-ideas] Were you mislead by "to XML"?
          >
          >
          > Hi everyone and Faustas,
          >
          > Sorry, I think I totally misunderstood you! You were actually
          > asking if JSX only a writer - if it was only Java Serialization
          > "to" XML, and did not read in XML or parse it.
          >
          > In fact, JSX does both - it writes and reads, just like Java's
          > own Serialization.
          >
          > I am now thinking that the name "Java Serialization _to_ XML" may
          > have mislead many people. Can anyone else say if they were
          mislead
          > at first?
          >
          > This is quite a serious misunderstanding, as parsing is usually
          the
          > harder bit!
          >
          > Any suggestions for simple mod to clearify the name? I can only
          > think of:
          > Java Serialization to/from XML
          > Java (de)Serialization to XML
          >
          > The "Serialization" in the original name refers to Java's
          > Serialization API - which of course is read/write. Unfortunately,
          > "serialization" also has a generic meaning, of writing in a serial
          > format, which the "to XML" also suggests...
          >
          > Maybe I can set up a poll for this, if we have several
          suggestions?
          > It's important to keep the acronym "JSX", but it's open apart from
          > that...
          >
          >
          > Cheers,
          > Brendan
          > > > do you have any plans to implement DOM searialization?
          > > Not as yet...
          > >
          > > > If I understand correctly, right now the XML serialization is
          > > > being done to the PrintWriter only.
          > > Yes, that's right.
          > >
          > > > Since the XML produced by JSX sooner or later gets parsed,
          > > > it would save some CPU cycles to present it in DOM form.
          > > I'm missing something here. If we save the XML to a file for
          > > persistence or config, or we send it over the wire, DOM isn't
          used
          > > at all.
          > ...and now we see the something I was missing... ;-)
          >
          > > However, if we needed to further parse the JSX output, and we
          were
          > > going to do it with DOM, then I agree that some cycles would be
          > > solved. In that case, the DOM becomes the interchange format,
          > > rather than XML itself.
          > >
          > > As for adding it - it's a good idea, but would require a pretty
          > > serious re-writing, I would guess. Since a rewrite is coming
          up,
          > > it might be possible to integrate it then...
          > >
          > > Have a great day!
          > >
          > >
          > > Cheers,
          > > Brendan
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > JSX-ideas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          Service.
        • Marti DeMore
          I was not mislead at all by the Java Serialization to XML . I just assumed that meant read and write.
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 3, 2001
            I was not mislead at all by the "Java Serialization to XML". I just
            assumed that meant read and write.

            At 12/1/2001 02:02 AM, you wrote:
            >Hi everyone and Faustas,
            >
            >Sorry, I think I totally misunderstood you! You were actually
            >asking if JSX only a writer - if it was only Java Serialization
            >"to" XML, and did not read in XML or parse it.
            >
            >In fact, JSX does both - it writes and reads, just like Java's
            >own Serialization.
            >
            >I am now thinking that the name "Java Serialization _to_ XML" may
            >have mislead many people. Can anyone else say if they were mislead
            >at first?
            >
            >This is quite a serious misunderstanding, as parsing is usually the
            >harder bit!
            >
            >Any suggestions for simple mod to clearify the name? I can only
            >think of:
            > Java Serialization to/from XML
            > Java (de)Serialization to XML
            >
            >The "Serialization" in the original name refers to Java's
            >Serialization API - which of course is read/write. Unfortunately,
            >"serialization" also has a generic meaning, of writing in a serial
            >format, which the "to XML" also suggests...
            >
            >Maybe I can set up a poll for this, if we have several suggestions?
            >It's important to keep the acronym "JSX", but it's open apart from
            >that...
            >
            >
            >Cheers,
            >Brendan
            > > > do you have any plans to implement DOM searialization?
            > > Not as yet...
            > >
            > > > If I understand correctly, right now the XML serialization is
            > > > being done to the PrintWriter only.
            > > Yes, that's right.
            > >
            > > > Since the XML produced by JSX sooner or later gets parsed,
            > > > it would save some CPU cycles to present it in DOM form.
            > > I'm missing something here. If we save the XML to a file for
            > > persistence or config, or we send it over the wire, DOM isn't used
            > > at all.
            >...and now we see the something I was missing... ;-)
            >
            > > However, if we needed to further parse the JSX output, and we were
            > > going to do it with DOM, then I agree that some cycles would be
            > > solved. In that case, the DOM becomes the interchange format,
            > > rather than XML itself.
            > >
            > > As for adding it - it's a good idea, but would require a pretty
            > > serious re-writing, I would guess. Since a rewrite is coming up,
            > > it might be possible to integrate it then...
            > >
            > > Have a great day!
            > >
            > >
            > > Cheers,
            > > Brendan
            >
            >
            >
            >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            >JSX-ideas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.