[jdom-interest] XML document transfer performance

james todd james.todd at Sun.COM
Mon Oct 1 11:13:18 PDT 2001

<lurker mode="off"/>

i very much agree with xml for persistence. as such, the opportunities
to manipulate the data by means that may not have been originally
considered are far greater then any other option ... that i am aware
of. this is very practical and quite enabling. quite compressible,
transformable, editable (by many means), (re)processable, et al.

- james

<lurker mode="on"/>

philip.nelson at omniresources.com wrote:
> > This looks very cool! It's nice to see support for both dom4j
> > and JDOM.
> ;-)
> >
> > I wonder if this could be JDOM's native serialization format?
> > What do you
> > think about the long-term compatibility of this format? (I
> > don't think that
> > people should be using anything besides standard XML files
> > for long-term
> > persistence, but as Jason pointed out, we do need to let
> > different versions
> > of JDOM talk to each other via RMI.)
> I was thinking the same thing.  Joseph Bowbeer had some strong opinions on
> this.  Joe?
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhost.com

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list