up - the angle brackets and quotes for the XML tags got escaped. That could
have been an issue with how we were doing the serialization (had to handle
"dangerous" characters), but that particular system had a limit of two deep.
Thanks for the response. Any other comments?
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 4:09 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: WDDX vs raw XML?
I don't think 4 or 5 should pose as a problem. I know I have a WDDX
solutions that has around 5 or 6 and it works fine. Also you may check out
wddx site and see whatever there is a limit or no limit at all. It would be
strange in my opinion if the limit (if any) was set to something under 10.
TK
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 6:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: WDDX vs raw XML?
We have a situation where we need to pass complex data structures from the
server to the client, and from the client back to the server. In the
past,
I've handled this with WDDX, but am aware of a "quasi" limit to how deep
you
can nest WDDX packets. Our current app is going to need multiple levels -
probably 4 or 5. (i.e. the Base object has a collection which contains
other
objects that contain collections which contains other objects that
contains
collections, etc....).
We've done some brief exploration of the XML functions in CFMX, and
suspect
this is probably the best choice for complex data like this. However, I'd
like to hear from others in the group to see if there are any other
reasonable alternatives. (other than creating individual WDDX objects for
each possible collection).
Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
Shawn
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
