From: Tyler Close <>
Replying To: Mark Miller <>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:27:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [e-lang] Serialization in Squeak-E (was: MAC calculation)

On Tuesday 26 November 2002 00:42, Mark Miller wrote:
> At 06:21 PM 11/26/2002 Tuesday, Rob Withers wrote:
> >> What's the current state of Squeak support for the Java serialization
> >> format?
> >
> >heh, why would we want to do java when we can do squeak?   Everyone is a
> >refugee here.  ;-)   sorry, there's no support for java serialization.
>  From earlier correspondence I thought there was, but don't worry about it.
> I hope to drop Java serialization as well.  There's no way to get past the
> perception that it's Java-dependent, and no one is pushing it as a language
> neutral serialization standard.
> Have you looked at Tyler's Doc and how Tyler's WOMP uses it for
> serialization?  CapTP is not WOMP (they have different semantics), but I
> hope to switch CapTP's serialization to something at least close to WOMP's
> serialization.  Other serialization proposals are certainly welcome, so
> long as they have both an XML form and an efficient form.  (I know the OMG
> has something here I need to examine.)

If you do decide to use the Waterken Object Serialization  (WOS),
then I suggest that a good development plan would be to implement
the WOMP as a prelude to implementing the next generation of
CapTP (XCapTP?). The WOMP requires very little additional
implementation work beyond implementing serialization and a
framework for exporting capabilities. All of this work should be
reusable in implementing XCapTP.

If this development plan is followed,  than it would result in E,
Squeak and Waterken servers all being able to securely
communicate. At this point, the network effects start to become
impressive. Adding ToonTalk would really start to show off the
nature of exponential curves.

e-lang mailing list