Mailing-List: contact ctakes-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 Pei.Chen@childrens.harvard.edu designates 134.174.20.73 as permitted sender)
From: "Chen, Pei" <Pei.Chen@childrens.harvard.edu>
To: "dev@uima.apache.org" <dev@uima.apache.org>
CC: "ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: UIMA AS Binary vs XMI serialization
Thread-Topic: UIMA AS Binary vs XMI serialization
Thread-Index: Ac3p95HENQAhTieCTU+vqZd4N6kHlw==
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:25:34 +0000
Message-ID: <924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D925F2C7@CHEXMBX1A.CHBOSTON.ORG>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D925F2C7CHEXMBX1ACHBOSTON_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D925F2C7CHEXMBX1ACHBOSTON_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,
I was just curious on others' experience with the binary serialization.

My original issue was documents which contained invalid XML chars, so I dec=
ided to try the binary serialization option within AS instead of replacing/=
modifing the special chars in the original docs.  As a side effect, I notic=
ed that it's magnitudes of order faster;
Just curious if there were any reasons why not make this  the recommended/d=
efault when sending CAS's around within AS.  Are there any downsides to be =
aware of (assuming that UIMA will have wrappers to abstract this from users=
 for all of their implementations.)

Caused by: org.xml.sax.SAXParseException; Trying to serialize non-XML 1.0 c=
haracter: , 0x0
        at org.apache.uima.util.XMLSerializer$CharacterValidatingContentHan=
dler.checkForInvalidXmlChars(XMLSerializer.java:254)

--Pei

--_000_924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D925F2C7CHEXMBX1ACHBOSTON_--