Avinash Lakshman wrote:
> Yes it does. But it seemed to worked much better in terms of time taken to do so.
Likely because you were making conscious or unconscious assumptions
about your code that allowed you to do the coding more efficiently.
If you go to making every communicated object "externalizable" then its
morally equivalent really to building your own packet protocol. About
the only time I can imagine this would be useful is if you wanted to
keep RMI while ditching the Serialization code. Myself i havent run
into a case where default Serialization was inappropriate but RMI still
> I don't seem to remember the exact numbers but increased our throughput by atleast 400%.
> Avinash> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:54:25 -0700> From: rschulz@SONI...> Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-JAVA] java serialization alternative> To: ADVANCED-JAVA@DISC...> > On Friday 28 March 2008 18:41, Avinash Lakshman wrote:> > We are building a large scale system which relies on messaging> > heavily. We tried all kinds of serialization formats: Java, JAXB, XML> > and JSON with XStream. All of them were useless for high throughput.> > So we switched to Externalizable style serialization and were able to> > get much better performance. Which was evident upfront but we didn't> > have to write that code.> > Doesn't Externalizable require you to implement the actual conversion to> and from the external format?> > > > ...> > > Randall Schulz> > ===================================> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com > _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes.
> http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V3 > ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com >
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com >