----- Original message ----- > 1. I understand "Memento" is an interface and "ReflectiveMemento" - an > implementation > > 2. Isn't just "Memento" too generic? > > DistributedObjectMemento? > SerializableMemento? (to indicate implementations should support > standard serialization)?
It's a final class, there's only one implementation. Objects that implement Distributed are required to create one during serialization, when Distributed's method is called. > > 3. A little different issue - did u find a way to serialize cycles in > the object graph? Right now SerialReflectionFactory has the same issues > as writeReplace()/ readResolve() Yes and no, let me explain. A SerialReflectionFactory cannot refer to itself, however it can contain another SerialReflectionFactory it is equal to, in which case it will refer to itself during deserialization, however in order to be equal, each SerialReflactionFactory must also contain an equal SerialReflectionfactory, in an infinite recursion, however because one object instance can't occur in this structure more than once, an attempt to create this structure will result in an OOME, with the exception of a hand crafted stream, read on... Every instance of a particular Distributed object implementation will be replaced in the Serialization stream by SerialReflectionFactory. Unlike readResolve() the ObjectInputStream replaces all instances of a SerialReflectionFactory with the object it creates, having established that a SerialReflectionFactory could only refer to itself in a hand crafted serialization stream, it still provides the Distributed object with an opportunity to check its invarients during construction, the Distributed object shouldn't throw an exception after calling an Object superclass constructor to avoid creating a partially constructed object an attacker can use, so it's important to check invarients using a static method before Object superclass constructor is called. So yes, it's reasonably safe if you want it to be. Distributed objects don't implement Serializable and because they aren't serialized, a Distributed object implementation can refer to itself, but it's up to the implementation to wire up dependencies when its constructor is called. It's quite a corner case though. You're welcome, cheers, Peter. > > Thanks, > Michal > > On Thursday 26 of June 2014 20:53:03 Peter wrote: > > Any objections to calling it Momento? > > > > ----- Original message ----- > > > > > You're sharp, so it is, that's a good one. > > > > > > ----- Original message ----- > > > > > > > It really is a Memento. Isn't it? > > > > > > > > Michal > > > > > > > > 23 cze 2014 13:24 "Peter Firmstone" <j...@zeus.net.au> napisał(a): > > > > > Distributed object use SerialReflectionFactory to recreate > > > > > themselves remotely using one of their public constructors, a > > > > > static factory method or builder object, however one thing about > > > > > SerialReflectionFactory bothers me. > > > > > > > > > > SerialReflectionFactory is named after it's implementation, that > > > > > is, it uses reflection. At some point in time, we might > > > > > decide we want to use something other than reflection, in that > > > > > case, the name would be inappropriate. > > > > > > > > > > How does DistributedObjectFactory sound? > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone got a better name? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Peter. > > -- >
