Isn't that the point of the transient to mark items of a serializable class that can't be serialized? Is there a reason that shouldn't be done?
David Humeniuk From: Richard S. Hall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:24 PM To: OSGi Developer Mail List Subject: Re: [osgi-dev] BundleEvent and others extend EventObject even thoughthey aren't serializable 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]: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
