Hmm, there ain't much feedback to check if the reciever actually understands what is beeing sent, so I guess it is not possible.
BTW. is it possible anyway for a 1.1 version to speak to a 1.2 version? /Ole On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 19:50, Mark Womack wrote: > Burton, > > Thanks for the explanation. I was reading through the javadoc for > Serializable and Externalizable, and while it never came right out and said > it, I got the basic undertone of your explanation. > > Since log4j can own both sides of the pipe, anything that can speed the > transfer sounds like a win. > > My question is, are the changes to use Externalizable compatible with older > log4j versions? If I had a log4j version using the new code sending logging > events to an older version of log4j, would they be able to talk? If not, > could the new code be written so it would work with older versions? I'm > guessing not, but maybe? > > Still, requiring the same version of log4j on both sides might be an > acceptable requirement. > > -Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leathers, Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:23 AM > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: Serialization performance > > > Mark, et al. > > The spec for both serialization and externalization can be downloaded from > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/docs/guide/serialization/index.html > > The nub of it is that serialization is built in and carries a great deal of > meta data whereas externalization is "roll your own" which means that much > content can be omitted provided(!!) the sender and receiver have a prior > agreement on the content of the structured object. > > Serialization is designed to handle inheritance and evolution with as much > grace as possible. Externalization makes no such commitments -- but one can > build them in to whatever degree is appropriate. > > A properly implemented externalization technique can be designed to go like > stink because so much less is encoded and transmitted but it falls upon the > developer of the externalization methods to make it deal with changes in > class structures. > > Burton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 12:33 PM > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: Serialization performance > > > Ole, what is the difference between Externalizable and Serializable? Can > you give some background as to why there is a performance increase? > > Thanks, > -Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ole Dalgaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Serialization performance > > > Hi, > > I was performance testing the SocketAppender and found it too slow and > CPU intensive.So I made some changes to LoggingEvent. > LoggingEvent is now Externalizable instead of Serializable. This should > be compatible with JDK 1.1 as well. > My performance measurements give me 30-50% more throughput. > > BR > Ole Dalgaard > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you > have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you > may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any > attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender > promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you. > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
