Serializable is defined by Java. IsSerializable is defined by Google. IsSerializable is recommended, because it provides functionality specific to GWT (including remediating the need for a serialUID field). The reason I defined a separate interface is for compiler optimization (see Google IO 2009 - The Story of your GWT Compile). Basically, rather than going out and finding every object that extends IsSerializable, you can just have an interface to be implemented by those classes you know will be transfered.
Also, it seems to me that the IsSerializable and Transferable might have different meanings in this context. Perhaps Transferable should be named "Mappable" or something. The point is, you would need a overarching interface that implements IsSerializable and is specific enough not to compile the entire java library. On Jul 6, 3:30 am, Kwhit <kwhitting...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not sure but can't this be can't it be done using Serializable (or > IsSerializable - I don't understand what the difference is) rather > than introducing a Transferable interface so you don't get an increase > in code size? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
