From: Xiangrong Fang <xrfang@...>
Date: 2003-03-19T00:40:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Marshal (was Re: Protocols)

Thanks. For the purpose of my current program, I don't need
interoperable serialization. I think ruby's is ok for me, however, I
don'see very good performance in 1.6.7's Marshal, so I continue to use
sysread and split to build my hash in memory.

I happen to see a post by Matz saying that there will be big improvement
in 1.8's Marshal, so I'll just wait :)



On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:25:10 +0900
"NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@keynauts.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> > From: Xiangrong Fang
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:28 AM
> 
> > I try to catch up with the conversation here :)
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> http://rrr.jin.gr.jp/rwiki?cmd=view;name=Marshal
> 
> > Does the 
> > benchmark mean
> > that Ruby 1.8's build-in Marshal routine is the best?
> 
> Yes, where you can choose it, for example, where no cross
> language interoperable serialization is needed.
> 
> But I did not intend to say 1.8 > 1.6 here
> (even if I think so).
> 
> Regards,
> // NaHi
> 

-- 
Xiangrong Fang <xrfang@hotmail.com>