[jdom-interest] Re: JDOM Extension for Java Object (de)serialization

[Matthias Basler]

Tatu Saloranta wrote:

> Hi Matthias! I think it's good that you had a chance
> to have a look at what others have done in the area.

Yes. Object binding/serialization is really one of the fields where every
developer has it's very specific goals and priorities. Probably this explains
why there are so many APIs around.

> One thing I was wondering was that, as nice as JDom
> is, many/most data binding packages actually work
> directly on streaming parsers. Do you have specific
> need to have the full in-memory tree for binding, or
> is that just for convenience? Just curious, since
> in-memory tree does consume quite a bit of memory; and
> it's mostly warranted if you are planning to reflect
> changes back and fort. So maybe you plan on reflecting
> changes between the jdom tree and objects
> synchronously?

Very simple answer: I actually prevent JDOM from building a complete JDOM tree
in memory for exactly the reason you mention. So you might wonder why I use
JDOM at all, if I don't want an in-memory tree? Simply for convenience! The
JDOM "Element class" is so convenient (in comparison to handling SAX events),
and this makes it easy to write bindings, i.e. conversion routines between the
specific Java objects and the "Element"s.

See the documentation in the source code (Which I sent) for details.

Matthias Basler
c9bama at uni-jena.de

----------------------------------------------------------------
This mail was sent through http://webmail.uni-jena.de