ControlHandle itself is just an interface... but you are 100% that concrete implementations of ControlHandle should mplement java.io.Serializable to enable them to be persisted, enqueued, passed over a wire, etc.
In general, it's probably not a good idea to have an interface implement Serializable and then have a corresponding impl pick it up via an 'implements' inheritance relationship. You generally want a class author to be thinking more explicitly about serialization in the design of class state. I'll add something to the Javadoc for Control Handle that states "classes implementing this interface should be serializable". This will make it more explicit, less implied. -- Kyle On 4/27/05, Mridul Muralidharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Is there any particular reason why ControlHandle does not implement > java.io.Serializable interface ? > From what I read , I would guess it is envisioned to be used in > situations which will need serialization/deserialization ... > > Thanks and Regards > Mridul >
