On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Stefan Guggisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Marcel Reutegger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> does anyone remember why ItemStates are serializable? It seems they are >> never actually serialized directly. Instead we use the Serializer utility >> class that serializes the individual parts an ItemState consists of. >> >> maintaining backward compatibility for serializable classes is quite >> painful. If we don't actually use it I suggest we drop it. > > -10000! > > > > ...just kidding ;) > > serializability of ItemState's is a leftover from jackrabbit's humble > beginnings > where ItemState instances were persisted in the file system using standard > java object serialization. > > a while ago i also toyed around with ehcache for allowing jackrabit's internal > itemstate caches to overflow to disk (which required itemstates to be > serializable). > it turned out that it's possible with jackrabbit's current model.
i meant 'impossible' ;) > > +1 for dropping it > > cheers > stefan > > > >> >> regards >> marcel >> >
