On 11/30/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/30/05, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Recently, while looking at a codebase that uses Commons Chain, I was > > drawn to the top commit message for ContextBase [1]. > > > > I'm interested in knowing what the developer (and user too) opinions > > are on this topic. Has anybody made any progress on this? > > > > Does anyone have a preference among - > > > > * Keep base impls inherently serializable, but let subclass > > implementors make their own decisions about serializability. This is > > probably a good idea for any Commons library, since interfaces can't > > be "un-inherited" (quoting the commit message). I think this action > > will warrant a major release, and rework on ContextBase (to not > > inherit HashMap) amongst other things. > > Whats wrong with HashMap - it implements Serializable? > <snip/>
Yes, and the subsequent implication that has on all subclasses. This already affects (Servlet / Portlet / Faces) WebContext classes in [chain]; but more importantly it can also affect users of Commons Chain the same way. "Affect" -- that is, only if you believe that classes should advertise serializability if and *only if* they are serializable. Usage wise, the argument can be easily made that if one is never going to attempt to serialize a class instance, then it really doesn't matter even if its advertised as serializable and isn't (because you'll never know any better). For that school of thought, I had presented the third bullet "Do nothing at all". -Rahul > > Niall > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
