Re: Serialization StackOverflowError

[Michael Ryan Bannon]

> Okay, this seems to be irrelevant, in the sense that they are talking about the Serialization in RMI terms of a linked list, this here is neither RMI nor, more importantly, a > linked list.   The point they're making, and the point that I'm making, is that recursive serialization of data structures may cause a stack overflow.  They're using a linked list is an example.  They suggest that non-recursive solutions may be the answer.   > That is the problem with XML serialization also, it is not a linked list but a tree so it is harder to get the recursion out.    Not really.  It can be done in a loop with three or four (can't remember) extra node objects.   > I am sure someone from the Xerces team will be here shortly to say that they welcome patches......    Not a patch, but a choice.  An additional implementation may be a wise addition. In that case, would it be beneficial to consider an additional implementation that is not recursive?    Maybe, maybe not.  Personally, I wouldn't create such a document.  But I'm creating it for testing purposes.  I see your point...and 10,000 is an extreme case.  However, this is a consequence of the testing I'm doing.    Yeah, I figured it would be a test-document. Maybe you should try a document with 10.000 attributes next, see how that performs....   So, in short, would it be wise to consider a non-recursive pre-order traversal of a DOM tree?  (I'm assuming not since I'm probably the only one who has ever asked...)    I already looked at how serialization should be done without recursion (as in our product, we use recursion for serialization also), I then concluded that it was not easily changable into tail-recursion (first step to changing it to an iteration) so "no way I was going to implement that".   Kind regards,   --Sander.