From a java perspective, Serialization implies a contract that GWT (or more specifically Javascript) cannot fully uphold, so originally the developers created IsSerializable which implies the subset of the Serialization contract that could be upheld.
As GWT progressed, it turned out that this thinking was a bit too restrictive, and required contamination of data objects that would not necessarily be needed, so the regular Serializable interface became allowed as a GWT serialization marker as well. On the GWT side of things, both interfaces are treated equally. If you have objects that are ONLY serialized for GWT-RPC, and they don't necessarily uphold all of the other assumptions of a fully Serializable Java object, then it is probably more appropriate to use the IsSerializable interface so you don't run afoul in the Java world. -jason On May 11, 2009, at 10:35 PM, jagadesh wrote: > > Why is there a serilization marker interface in Gwt when we have one > in java. both are marker interfaces , why then two > > is Gwt serialization interface do some thing more or less? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
