[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Serialization of XDM

• From: Michael Ludwig <mlu@as-guides.com>
• To: 'XML Developers List' <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:34:04 +0200

Michael Kay schrieb:
>> In all cases, will it not be more efficient to just use some
>> run-of-the-mill serialization format?
>
> A general-purpose serialization format (for example, Java
> serialization) will represent the concrete implementation of
> the XDM model (for example a Saxon TinyTree), which will only
> be usable if you want to reconstruct it as another Saxon
> TinyTree. I think we are looking for a format that allows you
> to cross implementation boundaries.

Yes, but if I remember correctly (not sure I do, actually), a
motivation for this quest was efficiency in a pipeline, which
precludes an XML round-trip.

What about a CommonTinyTree interface for Saxon and Xalan? My
guess is that would be problematic. In the end, what would be
gained? Also, competition is good; different engines explore
different ways. (Even if I seem to remember having read that
TinyTree was inspired by the Xalan implementation.)

I'm not a trained computer scientist, but I would be astonished
if there was no format for serializing trees that could be used
to accomodate XDM. And be implemented in Java.

Something like a "General Tree Serialization Format". Maybe the
exact wording needs some tweaking to make Google come up with
something useful.

-- 
Michael Ludwig

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Serialization of XDM
    • From: Michael Ludwig <mlu@as-guides.com>

• References:
  • Serialization of XDM
    • From: "David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com>
  • Re: Serialization of XDM
    • From: Michael Ludwig <mlu@as-guides.com>
  • RE: Serialization of XDM
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>