The java classes used for struct and array primitives in xml-rpc have been hashtable and vector. Why not bind map and list to struct and array on the server side? These are faster, lighter classes than the old pre java 2 classes.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
We wanted the library to work with pre-Java2 JDKs. We have some elements that rely on Java2, and even JDK 1.3, but they are optional. I will consider rewriting the library using only containers from the Java 2 Collection API, or perhaps give the user an option.
I think there's still a nedd to support earlier JDKs.
Regards,
Greger
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I strongly believe that there is stil the need for pre-Java2 support.
1. for all those Applet-guys
2. for those who have to stick to a certain JDK version due to other constraints. This is really important for many enterprise developer who have to live with JDK 1.1 because they either work on older projects or have to live with old server infrastructure.
What about using the Collection API for JDK 1.1? This would reqire a small modification to the source and a recompile when swithcing between JDK1.1 and Java2 but I think that's a small rpice to pay. Would make the migration to Java2 collection easier in the future.
Cheers
Rainer
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I agree. Unfortunately, we're stuck with old JDKs and JREs for yet some time.
I downloaded the Collection API for JDK 1.1. This is perhaps what we want. I'd like some proof first, though, that the JDK 1.1 containers are too slow. I mean, the bottleneck in this scenario ought to be the socket code. I don't think there are a lot of issues with locking in the code either, due to Hashtable and Vector synchronization. In any case, this isn't top priority right now.
Bye,
Greger
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The java classes used for struct and array primitives in xml-rpc have been hashtable and vector. Why not bind map and list to struct and array on the server side? These are faster, lighter classes than the old pre java 2 classes.
Hi,
We wanted the library to work with pre-Java2 JDKs. We have some elements that rely on Java2, and even JDK 1.3, but they are optional. I will consider rewriting the library using only containers from the Java 2 Collection API, or perhaps give the user an option.
I think there's still a nedd to support earlier JDKs.
Regards,
Greger
Hi,
I strongly believe that there is stil the need for pre-Java2 support.
1. for all those Applet-guys
2. for those who have to stick to a certain JDK version due to other constraints. This is really important for many enterprise developer who have to live with JDK 1.1 because they either work on older projects or have to live with old server infrastructure.
What about using the Collection API for JDK 1.1? This would reqire a small modification to the source and a recompile when swithcing between JDK1.1 and Java2 but I think that's a small rpice to pay. Would make the migration to Java2 collection easier in the future.
Cheers
Rainer
I agree. Unfortunately, we're stuck with old JDKs and JREs for yet some time.
I downloaded the Collection API for JDK 1.1. This is perhaps what we want. I'd like some proof first, though, that the JDK 1.1 containers are too slow. I mean, the bottleneck in this scenario ought to be the socket code. I don't think there are a lot of issues with locking in the code either, due to Hashtable and Vector synchronization. In any case, this isn't top priority right now.
Bye,
Greger