On 8/4/11 12:51 PM, BJ Hargrave wrote:
> to Bundle objects, which themselves are serializable
I think Richard means *not* serializable.
Yes, sorry for my dreaded tendency to drop the "not"...
-> richard
> declare these two fields as transient
While this will technically make the object serializable,
deserializing will produce a meaningless object since it will not have
any bundle objects. I think this is wrong. It is better that the
object fails to serialize so people realize fast that the object
cannot be properly serialized.
--
*BJ Hargrave*
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the _OSGi Alliance_ <http://www.osgi.org/>_
[email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>
office: +1 386 848 1781
mobile: +1 386 848 3788
From: "Richard S. Hall" <[email protected]>
To: OSGi Developer Mail List <[email protected]>
Date: 2011/08/04 12:32
Subject: Re: [osgi-dev] BundleEvent and others extend EventObject even
though they aren't serializable
Sent by: [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue is that BundleEvent is a concrete class that has two
references to Bundle objects, which themselves are serializable. So
you run into issues if you actually try to serialize a BundleEvent.
The only potential solution is to modify the standard BundleEvent
class impl to declare these two fields as transient in the next spec
release.
-> richard
On 8/4/11 11:16, Martin Petzold wrote:
BundleEvent extends EventObject and thus implements Serializable [1],
did you perhaps mean org.osgi.service.event.Event. Would be great to
have org.osgi.service.event.Event serializable. I had some problems
about this while implementing a remote event admin some time ago.
[1]
_http://www.osgi.org/javadoc/r4v43/org/osgi/framework/BundleEvent.html_
Thanks,
Martin
Am 04.08.2011 17:08, schrieb [email protected]:_
<mailto:[email protected]:>
EventObject implements Serializable so any class extending it should
be serializable as well. However, BundleEvent and others are not
serialiable and as I understand are not intended to be.
Any chance the base class will change or am I stuck with this? I
would rather not have special logic which ignore these types of object
when sending them through RMI (or other times serializing is involved).
Thanks,
David Humeniuk
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>
_https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev_
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>
_https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev________________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
