W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: java DOM

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:40:28 -0700
Message-ID: <006901bfdc92$7b97b8e0$6500000a@brownell.org>
To: "Michael Newcomb" <mnewcomb@breakaway.com>, <www-dom@w3.org>
Well, there are those of us whose experience in
distributed systems make us feel that serialization
has fundamental conceptual flaws which make most
uses of it a bad idea.

(Serialization takes internal data structures and
turns them into public interfaces that need to be
managed.  Despite use of information hiding in order
to prevent the consequent evolution problems.)

Then there's the fact that what W3C should work on
is standards that aren't specific to one language.
A language-neutral serialization format would be OK.

And ... my, isn't there already a language-neutral
serialization syntax for DOM?  Called "XML" ??  One
expects that DOM L3 will finally have ways to turn
DOM to XML (and back) without loss of information.

- Dave

p.s. Some DOM _implementations_ are serializable, FWIW.
    Vendors A and B won't interop, and the size of any
    serialized DOM node has been substantially larger
    than the corresponding XML text (when I checked).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Newcomb" <mnewcomb@breakaway.com>
To: <www-dom@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 June, 2000 5:21 AM
Subject: java DOM

> Why aren't the java bindings serializable?
> Michael
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 17:40:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:07 UTC