On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 09:40:25PM +0200, Heinz Kredel wrote:
> Am Dienstag 15 Mai 2012, 23:25:46 schrieb Gilles Sadowski:
> > Hello.
> >
> > > as I am also interested in short term serialization just for moving
> > > objects between a distributed virtual machines and not in long term
> > > serialization, I would support the discussion up to now. To express our
> > > intentions we could make an interface, say
> > >
> > > public interface Transportable extends Serializable { }
> > >
> > > and then implement this interface when ever containers should be short
> > > term serializable. This interface could then also document our
> > > intentions. And this would then allow the usage of CM in a distributed
> > > setting.
> >
> > I like the idea of finding something in order to make it clear what the
> > intention is. However, I don't see what we would gain with this new
> > interface.
> > Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> I think of such an interface as a workaround: there are good reasons for
> implementing Serializable and good reasons for to not implement it. So the
> people which need some classes to be usable in a distributed setting could be
> satisfied without putting the burden of implementing Serializable with its
> full contract to the developers.
Relieving developers is a kind thought, but is it possible in this case?
I may be dense at the moment, but do you suggest that classes are tagged
with "... implements Transportable" and nothing more?
Regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
