Hi!
> Protocol buffers are objects to serialize things, but it doesn't > really make sense to use Java serialization to serialize their holder > objects. I'd like to pass Java objects from a unserialized protocol buffer between Beans inside a application server. This makes sense to me. > If you would try to Java serialize the protocol buffer objects, you > would loose all the functionality you were probably considering using > Protocol buffers in the first place: version independent, fast and > platform independent serialization. The object layout might change > between each protocol buffer library version or you might just change > the proto definition - all of which will create trouble if you use > Java serialization; the protocol buffer binary format, however, is > stable (and compact, and fast, and platform independent ...) I think you got it wrong: I'm not going to store a protocol-buffer in a java-serialized from, I just need to pass it as an argument between beans. > So in this case it was actually good that the > UnmodifiableLazyStringList was not Java serializable - it helped you > find an improper use. The deserialized protocol buffers are already implementing teh Serializable interface. Only if you have a repeated String field, it breaks. So I consider it as a bug. > I am not sure what the maintainers think, but I wouldn't add Java > 'Serializable' to all classes used within the generated objects - > because then these accidental wrong uses would just go unnoticed. Sometimes it's just nessesary. And 98% of the buffers are already Serializable. So somebody has need it before me. yours juergen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
