Because the karaf-webconsole. Wicket serializes the objects in a session. The alternative to make them serializable in Karaf is to "expand & store the relevant data" in serializable karaf-webconsole objects. This would also be possible, but I'm not sure if it isn't easier/better to make those plain java-beans serializable (that's why I put this on discussion :-))
Kind regards, Andreas On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:27, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you explain why you want this? I think serializable objects usually > lead to nothing but trouble. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Aug 24, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Andreas Pieber wrote: > > > While it is not required for the karaf-webconsole it would still help if > > various "simple java bean objects" in Karaf would be serializable. This > is > > not required, but on the other hand I don't consider it bad practice to > make > > objects which should only contain plain values serializable. In specific > I > > propose (for now at least :-)) to make the following interfaces > > serializable: > > > > # modified: > > features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/BundleInfo.java > > # modified: > > features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/ConfigFileInfo.java > > # modified: > > features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/Feature.java > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > Kind regards, > > Andreas > >
