Hi Mark Ok, if it doesn't harm performance it's fine with me. I had missed the note in the merge commit...
best regards, Tobias On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Mark Hiner <hi...@wisc.edu> wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > The SCIFIOCell class needs to be serializable to allow the library we're > using to persist opened cells to disk, and thus its superclass(es) needs to > be serializable with non-final fields. > > The only potential alternative I can think of would be to fully duplicate > AbstractCell's fields and logic in SCIFIOCell... but that would still require > the ArrayDataAccess to be serializable (do you see that as a potential > problem, or only AbstractCell?). > > In the merge commit I mentioned we ran the PerformanceBenchmark with/without > implementing Serializable and saw no difference. We thought that was > sufficient for merging the changes, but I'm sorry if we circumvented > discussion. > > If there are other tests you'd like to see run, or would like me to > investigate duplicating AbstractCell's code, let me know. > > Thanks, > Mark > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Tobias Pietzsch <pietz...@mpi-cbg.de> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > we just noticed the merge of the cell-serialization branch, that makes > AbstractCell Serializable and therefore final field non-final. > Actually Stephan Saalfeld noticed, I would have missed it probably. It would > be nice if such changes could be discussed before they are merged to master. > Did you do any tests to evaluate the performance impact of un-finalizing the > fields. > What is this needed for and are there other alternatives to achieve it > instead of making AbstractCell Serializable. > > best regards, > Tobias >
_______________________________________________ ImageJ-devel mailing list ImageJ-devel@imagej.net http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
