I have attempted to be clear all along that I fully support keeping serialization and think that the arguments against it are way overblown. As such, depicting Jeremy as the sole holdout against the tide of xml-goodness is ludicrous.
Also, my impression was that we had all agreed at the start that we would do our best to keep xml processing out of the runtime. I guess I should have had everyone sign up on this since it looks like fewer people remember this every day.
I don't know many details about object serialization. I would like to see a concrete demonstration of problems with serializing a reasonable attribute value, such as a javabean or strategy object.
thanks david jencks
On May 19, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
The serialization Vs. XML discussion has been going for almost a week now and it doesn't look like we are getting sidetracked into subtle (yet important) points, so I'd like to take the oportunity to bring this up the the high level were everyone can participate.
From my perspective I think we have the following issues and positions:
1) Difficulty of Serialization Vs. XML:
Jeremy: Serialization is just as difficult as XML and has the same inherent problems when you upgrade.
Others: XMl is much easier to implement and is much easier to process when you upgrade.
2) If serialization is harder and more error prone then XML, is XML sufficient to address the configuration of geronimo.
Jeremy: Users expect the level of stability that comes from an application that is serializable stable.
Others: Most platforms use XML already so it must be sufficient.
I hope I have not miss represented the discussion. This is an important discussion to every one involved with Geronimo, and I hope we can continue this discussion (at a little bit higher level) so that more people can participate.
-dain
