Is there a reason fields of those types couldn't be made transient?
David Humeniuk From: BJ Hargrave [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:20 PM To: OSGi Developer Mail List Subject: Re: [osgi-dev] BundleEvent and others extend EventObject eventhough they aren't serializable I think you are stuck with this. It was a design mistake in R1 (c. 1999) to base these classes on EventObject. Mea culpa. There is no way to make them serializable. Bundle and ServiceReference (types referenced by these classes) are not serializable and cannot be made so. There is no way to declare the event classes not serializable as far as I know. And we cannot really go back now and remove the base class. Sorry. -- 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: [email protected] To: <[email protected]> Date: 2011/08/04 11:22 Subject: [osgi-dev] BundleEvent and others extend EventObject even though they aren't serializable Sent by: [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] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev <https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev>
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
