[jdom-interest] org.jdom.Namespace not implementing Serializa ble?

Humphrey Sheil Humphrey.Sheil at Kadius.com
Fri Jul 21 02:44:08 PDT 2000


two strange things.  

1.  I sent a reply to the original mail to say that I was going to use
StringBuffer instead to work around this RMI limitation, but the original
reply I sent and not my second reply got sent out instead.

2.  I inspected the J2SE 1.3 source code (that I have) to see if this
limitation was still in place and it is.  Check out line 347 in

	if (utflen > 65535)
	    throw new UTFDataFormatException();

The version string at the top of this file is  "* @(#)DataOutputStream.java
1.32 00/02/02".  Maybe there is a later version released which corresponds
to the release notes you specified below.

I'll run a quick test to see what the real deal is here.  In the meantime,
StringBuffer it is.


-----Original Message-----
From: Peterbauer Karl [mailto:Peterbau at kapsch.net]
Sent: 21 July 2000 10:42
To: 'Humphrey Sheil'; 'Jools Enticknap'
Cc: 'jdom-interest at jdom.org'
Subject: AW: [jdom-interest] org.jdom.Namespace not implementing
Serializa ble?

Please note that the 64k string limit has been eliminated in Sun's JDK 1.3,
at least they claim to, see
(Clearly this is no solution if you have older or other VM's out in the

Personally I would appreciate that any Object (Document, Element) which
implements java.io.Serializable can in fact be serialized ;-) 
In case of RMI, passing a Document as String clearly undermines the goal of
RMI, and if the client is an Applet, it has to load yet another jar....


> -----Urspr> üngliche Nachricht-----
> Von:	Humphrey Sheil [SMTP:Humphrey.Sheil at kadius.com]
> Gesendet am:	Freitag, 21. Juli 2000 10:14
> An:	'Jools Enticknap'
> Cc:	'jdom-interest at jdom.org'
> Betreff:	RE: [jdom-interest] org.jdom.Namespace not implementing
Serializa ble?
> Thanks,
> I should have traversed the entire object graph to find this.
> I was hoping to avoid having to serialize the Document to a string.  The
> has imposed a hard 64k limit on the serialized form of a string (in
> java.io.DataOutputStream), since it uses the first two bytes of the
> underlying array to store the size of the array.  Any bigger and a
> UTFDataFormatException will be thrown.
> Humphrey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jools Enticknap [mailto:jools at jools.org]
> Sent: 20 July 2000 19:32
> To: Humphrey Sheil
> Cc: 'jdom-interest at jdom.org'
> Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] org.jdom.Namespace not implementing
> Serializable?
> > 1.  Should Namespace be Serializable?  I don't think so - the javadoc
> > that it is not just a namespace - it is also a factory for creating
> It's still an issue, there was a discussion about it, check the archives.
> > 
> > 2.  Anybody got any idea why RMI tries to serialize Namespace in the
> > place when I'm only trying to pass around an instance of a Document
> (which
> > contains no references to Namespace)?
> > 
> A Document contains references to Element, which in turn has references to
> Namespace. For the object to be serialized all the objects it references
> to must also be serializable.
> Can I suggest that you serialize the document into a String and then send
> that over the wire. The client can then create a JDOM object from the
> String using the SAXBuilder class.
> --Jools
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> t.com
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list