Magma object serializer

[Martin Dias]

Hi Chris,

Sorry for my delay, thank you very much for your answer and for the tips
about benchmarking. I also agree in that both serializers have different
purposes and so different features and limitations and so looking who is the
fastest is not the best comparison.

Another question: have you benchmarked the memory use while serializing or
materializing? I have never. I know that there is something called
SpaceTally but I don't know about it.

Cheers,
Martin


On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:

> >>  - Instantiatation / initialization of a MaObjectSerializer.
> >>  - Serialization of object graphs of various sizes.
> >
> > If you have by chance some code snippets to generate graphs for testing
> > (maybe you have that in Magma) let us know :)
> > We can a pice of code that generates binary trees...
>
> Yes, see MaFixtureFactory.
>
>  MaFixtureFactory current samples
>
> or
>
>  MaFixtureFactory current knot
>
> There was a discussion recently about comparing object graphs -- you
> may be interested in MaObjectSerializerTester, and how it verifies
> serialized-->remateralized object graphs of any shape against the
> original fixture graph.  Very useful for ensuring your serializer is
> _working_.  :)  See MaObjectSerializerTestCase>>#testSamples which
> sends #maEquivalentForSerializationTest: to determine that..
>
> >> "Serialization"
> >> | obj ser |
> >> obj := Array with: 1 with: 'string'.
> >> ser := MaObjectSerializer new.
> >> [ ser serializeGraph: obj ] bench
> >>
> >
> > With the rest of the serializers that we do is to serialize the graph
> into a
> > file. How could we do this with Magma Serializer?
> > because serializeGraph: answers a MaSerializedGraphBuffer. So, I guess I
> can
> > ask the byteArray to it and do a nextPutAll: or something like that to
> our
> > stream?
>
> Yes.  I, of course, always appreciated the elegance of the notion that
> MaObjectSerializer could operate directly on Streams, but the problem
> is that I also want a secure client-server protocol which wraps the
> serialized requests and responses.  So to, for example, calculate a
> MAC, the full byteArray of the request is required in advance.  It's
> ok though, serialized / materialized objects have to fit into memory
> anyway, so a streaming API doesn't really offer any practical
> advantage - just elegance.
>
> > We also have in Fuel what we call "in memory serialization" that
> basically
> > returns the byteArray and then we can materialize from that. So this case
> > would be similar to this usage of Magma, wouldn't it ?
>
> Yeah - similar to use of "Ma object serializer".  (IOW, you don't have
> to load Magma to use MaObjectSerializer), you can just load MaBase.
>
> >> As I said, benching is tricky, and publishing comparisons even
> >> trickier
> >
> > yes, exactly. The problem is in addition that there are supported
> features
> > of a serializer that inpacts on the results of a benchmark. For example,
> > supported class reshapes, initialization after materialization, support
> > transient instVars...etc... to support all those things you usually spend
> > more time. So maybe you support all that and in the results you are
> slower
> > in comparisson with someone that do not support that. So yes, measuring
> > speed only is not good. But taking into account the rest of the
> properties
> > is better.
>
> Yip!  Glad you said that.
>
>  - Chris
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/magma/attachments/20110609/99411df7/attachment.htm