I understand the idea about some classes beeing GWT-serializable and not Java-serializable but really can't find a valid use case. Seems more a misconception to me - just my humble opinion ;)
2009/9/10 George Georgovassilis <g.georgovassi...@gmail.com> > > I was under the impression that IsSerializable had been deprecated de > facto. John, does IsSerializable currently override the serialization > policy or this this a proposed behavior? > > On Sep 9, 4:27 pm, John Tamplin <j...@google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:06 AM, nicolas de loof < > nicolas.del...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > I wonder that IsSerializable is still in trunk without a depreaction > > > annotation. java.io.Serializable is supported by GWT-RPC since few > major > > > versions, maybe it's time to remove such legacy marker interface. > > > > I don't know if this is sufficient reason to keep it, but two reasons: > > > > - you might want a class to be serializable only in GWT and not in > normal > > Java > > - IsSerializable means that it is always serializable, even without a > > serialization policy file on the server. I think there are better > ways to > > do this sort of thing, but some people may be depending on this > > functionality > > > > Maybe it could also extends Serializable so that it can be easier to > switch > > > > > the related tools. > > > > Other than the first issue above, sounds like a good idea. > > > > -- > > John A. Tamplin > > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
