WDDX. I suspect you had an application specific problem. In regard to
WDDX vs. XML, you should remember that WDDX is XML, so what you are
really comparing is WDDX to some non-standard XML schema you make up.
As to whether a custom XML schema would be better for your application
that is an open question that we can't answer without more information
about your application. However, you should be aware that there would
need to be compelling reasons to use some other XML schema for the
purpose you describe since WDDX should work fine and building something
new will take time, effort, and may result in something less robust.
Matt Liotta
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
On Jan 5, 2004, at 6:15 PM, Shawn Grover wrote:
> We had a previous app that went 3 levels deep, the third level became
> messed
> 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]
