On 12/4/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Have the base classes implement Serializable where applicable
Sorry ... I should have discussed this on the list before making these
changes. It comes out of having been badly bit in cases where a subclass of
the base class *cannot* for some reason be made Serializable. Unless it's
absolutely required (and it's not in this case ... non JavaEE servers are
not required to enforce the serializability of session attributes unless you
also declare your app to be distributable), I would prefer we left the
SHOULD comments in the class javadocs, and make it the responsibility of the
concrete implementation classes to say "implements Serializable" when they
actually obey the contract.
<snip/>
Makes sense, I've changed back (per above para) in r482470.
As an aside, one trick I've seen when subclasses cannot be
serializable is to implement writeObject simply to throw a
NotSerializableException.
-Rahul
Craig
