Marvin Humphrey wrote:
The only question is whether there are Java-specific optimizations which are so advantageous that they outweigh the benefits of interchange.
It's not just optimizations. If we, e.g., wrote, for each field, the name of the codec class that it uses, then we could provide arbitrary extensibility. Anything that implemented the field codec API could be used, permitting alternate posting compression algorithms, etc. But that would not be friendly to other implementations, which may not be able to easily instantiate classses from class names, nor dynamically download codec implementations from a public repository, etc. The fact that java bytecode is portable makes this more attractive.
Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
