[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-203?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12701183#action_12701183
]
John Bollinger commented on CONFIGURATION-203:
----------------------------------------------
I would recommend that org.apache.commons.configuration.Configuration not be
modified to extend Serializable, because that imposes a requirement on *all*
implementations to be serializable. I think that's far too strong. Moreover,
it is not necessary for enabling clients to be serializable: an otherwise
serializable object that refers to a
org.apache.commons.configuration.Configuration (by that formal type) is
serializable if the Configuration *implementation* is Serializable, regardless
of whether the Configuration interface extends java.io.Serializable.
With that said, it is highly desirable to make the provided concrete
Configuration implementations serializable wherever possible. That will enable
them to be passed over RMI (including to remote EJBs) and to be held by
passivated objects (sessions, EJB instances, etc.), among other uses. On the
other hand, implementations tied to live sources (JNDI, database) are unlikely
candidates for being serializable.
This is a big endeavor, even in the more limited form I'm suggesting. Perhaps
it would be useful to split it up.
> Make Configuration Serializable
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: CONFIGURATION-203
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-203
> Project: Commons Configuration
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 1.1
> Reporter: Joe Wolf
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.7
>
>
> It would be nice if org.apache.commons.configuration.Configuration extended
> java.io.Serializable and its implementations were serializable as well.
> Theoretically, most configurations are constructed from "serialized" data
> sources.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
