Minor nit regarding the terminology, probably mostly just aesthetic on my part. "GwtTransient" doesn't sound that cool to me. Could we name it now to align with a more comprehensive effort later related to more developer control of RPC? For example, what if we called the annotation @NotSerializable. Then, we could also honor the annotation applying to an entire class in addition to fields. If that spanned inheritance, then it would be an easy way to blacklist entire hierarchies of classes.
It isn't perfect, but we'd get a useful first step toward an full-featured RPC whitelist/blacklist facility. (In the general case, of course, you want to specify serializable-ness relative to a particular RPC service interface, not on the class itself. But it's a start...) On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob, can you review the small attached patch? I can ask others if you > are slammed, but it's small and affects code you are familiar with, so > I thought I'd ask you first. > > This patch implements support for a @GwtTransient annotation. > @GwtTransient means the same thing as the transient keyword, but it is > ignored by all serialization systems other than GWT's. Usually the > <code>transient</code> keyword should be used in preference to this > annotation. However, for types used with multiple serialization > systems, it can be useful. The motivation is discussed further in > these bug reports: > > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2931 > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2964 > > > The patch simply adds the annotation and checks it in the places > isTransient is currently checked. So, from GWT's point of view, > isTransient and @GwtTransient are equivalent. > > > -Lex > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
