Richard Carlsson richardc@REDACTED
Fri Jun 2 13:14:59 CEST 2006

Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> If I want to create serialized Java objects in Erlang, I'd have to
> reimplement most of the serialization streaming stuff, which I don't
> look forward to. Instead, I am sending the Erlang term representing
> the tree and use jinterface to split it in components. So I have to
> rely on the internal representation...

Apart from being more sensitive to changes in erl_syntax,
the actual internal representation is a bit difficult to
work with directly. I suggest that you use the functions
that I mentioned to map a tree to a simple Canonical Form:
something like {NodeType, [Attributes], [SubTrees]}. This
translation would make your problems with handling the old
erl_parse representation simply go away, and you are still
free to add your annotations etc. Then send this canonical
form as a term to the Java side.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list