Jon, I personally think that while it is a good first attempt, that it would be best to step back and rethink the problem from the ground up. I believe it should be easier to make custom object serializable without needing to create read and write methods and also I believe this should also be stream based rather than building the entire serialized object in memory.
Rick On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Jon Wolfers <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Moritz, > > I just wanted to thank you for having a go! Do you think there is a lot > to do to get it going? > > Jon > > On 3 November 2015 at 16:46, Moritz Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I started it some time ago and never quite finished it. If someone would >> like to take ownership: go ahead! Otherwise it's OK with removing it from >> the code. >> Cheers, >> Moritz >> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:29 PM Rick McGuire <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Erich Steinböck < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> We currently have Serializable.orx in trunk, two methods readObject >>>> and writeObject in CircularQueue class, and dependencies to >>>> Serializable.orx in CMakeLists.txt. See also [feature-requests:#566 >>>> <https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/feature-requests/566/>] >>>> >>>> What should be the action for 5.0? >>>> Remove all above? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, I think they should all be removed. >>> >>> >>>> (If so, is there anything I should do, so that Serializable.orx isn't >>>> lost forever after I remove it from trunk?) >>>> >>> >>> Deleting a file from svn does not remove it from the respository. It >>> can still be retrieved from the trunk history. >>> >>> Rick >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Erich >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Rick McGuire <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Update missed in the Windows make file to remove Serializable.orx >>>>> dependency. I'll take care of that. >>>>> >>>>> Rick >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Rick McGuire <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Building now.... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Moritz Hoffmann <[email protected] >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I removed the serialization support from the branch in revision 9670. >>>>>>> It compiles fine on Linux, would be great if someone running Windows >>>>>>> could confirm this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/10/2013 04:47 PM, Moritz Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>> > As a first step, I added an RFE >>>>>>> > https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/feature-requests/566/ to track >>>>>>> > progress. I now remove the changes from the branch, it shouldn't >>>>>>> > be much effort. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Moritz >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 12/10/2013 04:27 PM, Rick McGuire wrote: >>>>>>> >> Darn, I hadn't noticed that code was in there. I'm not really >>>>>>> >> comfortable leaving that code in there, because I'm not >>>>>>> >> convinced it won't required changes that might require breaking >>>>>>> >> future compatibility. I think this needs to be removed from the >>>>>>> >> release branch. Is it much of a deal to remove it? Let me know >>>>>>> >> if I can assist with any of the removal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> I think we can leave it in trunk and ensure it gets more of a >>>>>>> >> workout and full docs+test suite additions. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Rick >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Moritz Hoffmann >>>>>>> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Hi all, looking at recent changes in SVN I noticed I once added >>>>>>> >> basic support for serializing and deserializing objects in >>>>>>> >> ooRexx (ages ago!) The support consists of the following >>>>>>> >> changes: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> * Addition of the Serializable class to provide read/writeObject >>>>>>> >> methods. * Addition of SerializeFunctions class to >>>>>>> >> serialize/deserialize Rexx objects. * Let core classes inherit >>>>>>> >> from Serializable and add default serialization behavior. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> The issue with the code is that there is hardly any >>>>>>> >> documentation and no tests. As we're approaching a new release I >>>>>>> >> think there should be a decision on whether to include it >>>>>>> >> officially, or remove it. The additions could be kept in a >>>>>>> >> branch, until I/a volunteer finds time to do the documentation >>>>>>> >> and testing effort. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Otherwise, I'd try to find time during the next weeks to >>>>>>> >> document the changes and come up with tests. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> What is your opinion about this? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Best, Moritz >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Oorexx-devel mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >>>> >>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oorexx-devel mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
