I would agree then. Is there some way to document this in the spec or something?
David Humeniuk From: Thomas Watson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:11 PM To: OSGi Developer Mail List Subject: Re: [osgi-dev] BundleEvent and others extend EventObjecteven though they aren't serializable I agree with BJ, I would prefer to fail fast instead of ending up with serialized BundleEvents that have no meaning. Tom BJ Hargrave---08/04/2011 12:00:48 PM---> to Bundle objects, which themselves are serializable From: BJ Hargrave/Austin/IBM@IBMUS To: OSGi Developer Mail List <[email protected]> Date: 08/04/2011 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [osgi-dev] BundleEvent and others extend EventObject even though they aren't serializable ________________________________ > to Bundle objects, which themselves are serializable I think Richard means *not* serializable. > 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 <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 <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 <https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev> _______________________________________________ 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
<<image001.gif>>
<<image003.png>>
<<image004.png>>
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
