> I believe from memory matt had looked up that you don't need the class
> to be serializable... Look up the java API for serializing objects, I
> think that had some stuff on how to handle this.
Yes. It's a bit dodgy but the dodginess is precisely compatible with Java's
dodginess. The Java serialise operation takes an Object and throws a
NotSerializable exception if it does not implement Serializable. Seems stupid
to defer to runtime, but that's what it does. The Java deserialize operation
returns an Object.
Therefore, we provide the same interface. We could accept a Serializable as
input, but we can't produce a Serializable as output so we may as well be
symmetrical.
I can write the serialize code since I have studied it, but it will have to
wait until this afternoon. If you can't wait, i believe it's called
ObjectOutputStream and ObjectInputStream, and is not very straightforward.
Please keep software development discussions on mugle-dev. Only admin
(meetings, pay claims) should be discussed privately.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mugle-dev
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mugle-dev
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
