> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan G. Switzer, II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:40 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: [SOT] Better WDDX JavaScript serializer/deserializer > functions? > > Jim, > > >> The reason the wddx.js stuff is so slow is because it's parsing the XML > >as > >> a > >> string. The larger the string the slow it is. It was written this way > for > >> maximum browser compatibility. > > > >Actually... no. ;^) > > > >It was written that way because at the time there was no other way to > write > >it - the DOM hadn't yet been published. Remember that the JS WDDX > library > >included in the official SDK was written in what... 1998? 1999? > > Not that it really matters, but IE4 had XML support via an ActiveX > object--and that was circa 1998 (or at least very early 1998.) IE5 was > released in 1999 as well--I believe in March of 1999.
But the library was browser compatible for Netscape 3... there is an "experimental" version of the library in the SDK for IE 4 only... but it was bleeding edge at the time and is not included in the CFML releases I've looked at (which all use the core libraries). > Also, Allaire did upgrades to the WDDX.js file in late 2000/early 2001 as > well (and they may have made changes to it more recently.) The only major addition since the beginning was the addition of the "binary" and "null" data types. The latest library available from openwddx.org is dated 11/9/1999 (it was updated by Nate Weiss to add those two data types). You can compare the libraries currently available with those given out at the first Allaire User conference in 1998 - there are very, very few changes. > >Did that... here's the link. ;^) > > > >http://www.depressedpress.com/Content/Development/JavaScript/Extensions/D > P_ > >W > >DDX/Index.cfm > > > >I only did DOM processing for deserialization (serialization seems just > >fine > >as string concatenations and building a DOM object by hand is tedious as > >all-get-out). > > Good to know. As much as I've used WDDX in the past, I generally have only > serialized data in JS. I don't know that I've actually ever tried > deserializing WDDX via JS. I think most people tend to do one or the other... either send complex data to JS or get complex data from JS. For my part I don't think I've ever used JS to serialize WDDX in a real application... just used it to convert complex data from the server to JS for display (Search results, select-box values, etc). (One of the major initial bugs in my parser was the fact that it would fail if the same instance was used to both serialize and deserialize... I didn't catch it until a few minutes before I uploaded it since none of my testing did that.) I'm building a more complex application right now that both sends and receives complex data from the client... but I'm not using WDDX to do it. I'm using YODEL - but it's really the same problem. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:220131 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
