Re: Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
I checked with the gurus, and the conclusion is as expected: while having ResultImpl implement interface Serializable exposes a portability issue, it shouldn't be a spec violation. I therefore suggest we fix ResultImpl to implement interface Serializable, and insert a comment in the Release Notes stating that relying on the serializability of Result objects might not be portable across different implementations of the JSTL spec. Please let me know if there is any other related issue. -- Pierre [Shawn, thanks for dropping the law books a few minutes to come help us out :-)] Shawn Bayern wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Kris Schneider wrote: Thanks for looking into it. To be honest, I'm surprised it took this long to surface ;-). As for whether Result should actually extend Serializable, I'm usually of the mind that an interface shouldn't extend Serializable and that it's an implementation detail. Consider the core collection interfaces and classes: neither Map nor SortedMap extend Serializable and AbstractMap doesn't implement it. TreeMap, however, does implement it. Another example would be the ResultSet and RowSet interfaces, neither of which extend Serializable. The important distinction here isn't between interface and implementation but between specification and implementation. Regardless whether an interface should typically be extended by an interface or implemented by a class (which I'll address in a moment), Pierre's concern here is that the enhancement request shouldn't be addressed by an implementation of the JSTL specification on its own. While I don't think it would strictly violate the JSTL specification for a JSTL implementation to have one of its classes (which implements a specified interface) implement another arbitrary interface, it would certainly be poor practice for users to rely on this nonstandard behavior (and thus probably irresponsible for an implementation to promote it). As for the specific point about whether interfaces should extend or implementations should implement, I don't think the analogies you raise are apposite: Map indeed doesn't extend Serializable, but this is only because there's no call for all implementations of Map to be Serializable. The JSTL specification could conceivable require that all implementations of a standard interface also implement Serializable, but the most elegant way for it to accomplish this is to have the standard interface extend Serializable itself. Indeed, this approach is very common: note the number of subinterfaces to Serializable (i.e., the number of interfaces that extend Serializable) in the J2SDK 1.4 API. Shawn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
While it could be argued it's not a bug, it certainly would be a nice enhancement to have ResultImpl implement Serializable. There are, however, a couple of things you can do in the meantime. Depending on your needs, you could just store the SortedMap[] returned by getRows in the session. Or you could create your own Result implementation that is serializable - the code in ResultImpl isn't really all that complex. Unfortunately, Bugzilla appears to be unreachable or I'd see about submitting an enhancement request... Quoting Antony Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I am using Result to pass data from servlet to JSP. I use this to display the result of a search 20 rows per page. ie. I have to keep it in session. Since it is not serializable it is throwing java.io.NotSerializableException when context is reloaded. Earlier I was using beanutils RowSetDynaClass instead of Result. Is there any way to serialize it. I think Result is a map of Strings only. Antony Paul. -- Kris Schneider mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] D.O.Tech http://www.dotech.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
Kris, There was already a bug opened for this issue (can't find which one while bugzilla is down) and it was marked as RESOLVE LATER because the problem is in the JSTL specification, not at Jakarta's implementation itself. As JSTL 1.1 specification has reached its final status, this bug can't be fixed now, only on the next specification. Felipe Kris Schneider wrote: While it could be argued it's not a bug, it certainly would be a nice enhancement to have ResultImpl implement Serializable. There are, however, a couple of things you can do in the meantime. Depending on your needs, you could just store the SortedMap[] returned by getRows in the session. Or you could create your own Result implementation that is serializable - the code in ResultImpl isn't really all that complex. Unfortunately, Bugzilla appears to be unreachable or I'd see about submitting an enhancement request... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
Here's a comment from ResultImpl.java: It is not part of the JSTL API; it serves merely as a back-end to ResultSupport's static methods. Also, the 1.0 spec only references Result and ResultSupport. I don't see how it's a spec issue if ResultImpl is changed to implement Serializable. It *would* be a spec issue for Result to extend Serializable, but that doesn't seem necessary. Is it just because the class is packaged in javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql as opposed to org.apache.taglibs.standard? Quoting Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Kris, There was already a bug opened for this issue (can't find which one while bugzilla is down) and it was marked as RESOLVE LATER because the problem is in the JSTL specification, not at Jakarta's implementation itself. As JSTL 1.1 specification has reached its final status, this bug can't be fixed now, only on the next specification. Felipe Kris Schneider wrote: While it could be argued it's not a bug, it certainly would be a nice enhancement to have ResultImpl implement Serializable. There are, however, a couple of things you can do in the meantime. Depending on your needs, you could just store the SortedMap[] returned by getRows in the session. Or you could create your own Result implementation that is serializable - the code in ResultImpl isn't really all that complex. Unfortunately, Bugzilla appears to be unreachable or I'd see about submitting an enhancement request... -- Kris Schneider mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] D.O.Tech http://www.dotech.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
A couple of other points to consider. According to the Serialization Spec, adding Serializable to a class is a compatible change. In addition, a serializable class must have access to the no-arg constructor of its first nonserializable superclass. Since ResultImpl extends Object, it meets that requirement as well. Quoting Kris Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Here's a comment from ResultImpl.java: It is not part of the JSTL API; it serves merely as a back-end to ResultSupport's static methods. Also, the 1.0 spec only references Result and ResultSupport. I don't see how it's a spec issue if ResultImpl is changed to implement Serializable. It *would* be a spec issue for Result to extend Serializable, but that doesn't seem necessary. Is it just because the class is packaged in javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql as opposed to org.apache.taglibs.standard? Quoting Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Kris, There was already a bug opened for this issue (can't find which one while bugzilla is down) and it was marked as RESOLVE LATER because the problem is in the JSTL specification, not at Jakarta's implementation itself. As JSTL 1.1 specification has reached its final status, this bug can't be fixed now, only on the next specification. Felipe Kris Schneider wrote: While it could be argued it's not a bug, it certainly would be a nice enhancement to have ResultImpl implement Serializable. There are, however, a couple of things you can do in the meantime. Depending on your needs, you could just store the SortedMap[] returned by getRows in the session. Or you could create your own Result implementation that is serializable - the code in ResultImpl isn't really all that complex. Unfortunately, Bugzilla appears to be unreachable or I'd see about submitting an enhancement request... -- Kris Schneider mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] D.O.Tech http://www.dotech.com/ -- Kris Schneider mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] D.O.Tech http://www.dotech.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
Ideally, javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.Result should be spec'ed as implementing the Serializable interface, so serialization is not left up to the implementor of the spec but is consistently applied across all implementations of the spec. We'll make sure this is fixed in the next rev of the spec. In the meantime, is it a spec violation to have an implementation of the Result interface (in our case ResultImpl) implement the Serializable interface? Maybe it is not, as Kris argues. However, the danger here is that if one vendor does support Serializable and the other does not, then a webapp would not be portable. And the specs are very strict on compatibility/portability issues... I'll consult with a few spec gurus and report back... Thanks, -- Pierre Kris Schneider wrote: A couple of other points to consider. According to the Serialization Spec, adding Serializable to a class is a compatible change. In addition, a serializable class must have access to the no-arg constructor of its first nonserializable superclass. Since ResultImpl extends Object, it meets that requirement as well. Quoting Kris Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Here's a comment from ResultImpl.java: It is not part of the JSTL API; it serves merely as a back-end to ResultSupport's static methods. Also, the 1.0 spec only references Result and ResultSupport. I don't see how it's a spec issue if ResultImpl is changed to implement Serializable. It *would* be a spec issue for Result to extend Serializable, but that doesn't seem necessary. Is it just because the class is packaged in javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql as opposed to org.apache.taglibs.standard? Quoting Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Kris, There was already a bug opened for this issue (can't find which one while bugzilla is down) and it was marked as RESOLVE LATER because the problem is in the JSTL specification, not at Jakarta's implementation itself. As JSTL 1.1 specification has reached its final status, this bug can't be fixed now, only on the next specification. Felipe Kris Schneider wrote: While it could be argued it's not a bug, it certainly would be a nice enhancement to have ResultImpl implement Serializable. There are, however, a couple of things you can do in the meantime. Depending on your needs, you could just store the SortedMap[] returned by getRows in the session. Or you could create your own Result implementation that is serializable - the code in ResultImpl isn't really all that complex. Unfortunately, Bugzilla appears to be unreachable or I'd see about submitting an enhancement request... -- Kris Schneider mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] D.O.Tech http://www.dotech.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
Pierre, Thanks for looking into it. To be honest, I'm surprised it took this long to surface ;-). As for whether Result should actually extend Serializable, I'm usually of the mind that an interface shouldn't extend Serializable and that it's an implementation detail. Consider the core collection interfaces and classes: neither Map nor SortedMap extend Serializable and AbstractMap doesn't implement it. TreeMap, however, does implement it. Another example would be the ResultSet and RowSet interfaces, neither of which extend Serializable. Quoting Pierre Delisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ideally, javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.Result should be spec'ed as implementing the Serializable interface, so serialization is not left up to the implementor of the spec but is consistently applied across all implementations of the spec. We'll make sure this is fixed in the next rev of the spec. In the meantime, is it a spec violation to have an implementation of the Result interface (in our case ResultImpl) implement the Serializable interface? Maybe it is not, as Kris argues. However, the danger here is that if one vendor does support Serializable and the other does not, then a webapp would not be portable. And the specs are very strict on compatibility/portability issues... I'll consult with a few spec gurus and report back... Thanks, -- Pierre Kris Schneider wrote: A couple of other points to consider. According to the Serialization Spec, adding Serializable to a class is a compatible change. In addition, a serializable class must have access to the no-arg constructor of its first nonserializable superclass. Since ResultImpl extends Object, it meets that requirement as well. Quoting Kris Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Here's a comment from ResultImpl.java: It is not part of the JSTL API; it serves merely as a back-end to ResultSupport's static methods. Also, the 1.0 spec only references Result and ResultSupport. I don't see how it's a spec issue if ResultImpl is changed to implement Serializable. It *would* be a spec issue for Result to extend Serializable, but that doesn't seem necessary. Is it just because the class is packaged in javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql as opposed to org.apache.taglibs.standard? Quoting Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Kris, There was already a bug opened for this issue (can't find which one while bugzilla is down) and it was marked as RESOLVE LATER because the problem is in the JSTL specification, not at Jakarta's implementation itself. As JSTL 1.1 specification has reached its final status, this bug can't be fixed now, only on the next specification. Felipe Kris Schneider wrote: While it could be argued it's not a bug, it certainly would be a nice enhancement to have ResultImpl implement Serializable. There are, however, a couple of things you can do in the meantime. Depending on your needs, you could just store the SortedMap[] returned by getRows in the session. Or you could create your own Result implementation that is serializable - the code in ResultImpl isn't really all that complex. Unfortunately, Bugzilla appears to be unreachable or I'd see about submitting an enhancement request... -- Kris Schneider mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] D.O.Tech http://www.dotech.com/ -- Kris Schneider mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] D.O.Tech http://www.dotech.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Kris Schneider wrote: Thanks for looking into it. To be honest, I'm surprised it took this long to surface ;-). As for whether Result should actually extend Serializable, I'm usually of the mind that an interface shouldn't extend Serializable and that it's an implementation detail. Consider the core collection interfaces and classes: neither Map nor SortedMap extend Serializable and AbstractMap doesn't implement it. TreeMap, however, does implement it. Another example would be the ResultSet and RowSet interfaces, neither of which extend Serializable. The important distinction here isn't between interface and implementation but between specification and implementation. Regardless whether an interface should typically be extended by an interface or implemented by a class (which I'll address in a moment), Pierre's concern here is that the enhancement request shouldn't be addressed by an implementation of the JSTL specification on its own. While I don't think it would strictly violate the JSTL specification for a JSTL implementation to have one of its classes (which implements a specified interface) implement another arbitrary interface, it would certainly be poor practice for users to rely on this nonstandard behavior (and thus probably irresponsible for an implementation to promote it). As for the specific point about whether interfaces should extend or implementations should implement, I don't think the analogies you raise are apposite: Map indeed doesn't extend Serializable, but this is only because there's no call for all implementations of Map to be Serializable. The JSTL specification could conceivable require that all implementations of a standard interface also implement Serializable, but the most elegant way for it to accomplish this is to have the standard interface extend Serializable itself. Indeed, this approach is very common: note the number of subinterfaces to Serializable (i.e., the number of interfaces that extend Serializable) in the J2SDK 1.4 API. Shawn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Serialising javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql.ResultImpl
Hi, I am using Result to pass data from servlet to JSP. I use this to display the result of a search 20 rows per page. ie. I have to keep it in session. Since it is not serializable it is throwing java.io.NotSerializableException when context is reloaded. Earlier I was using beanutils RowSetDynaClass instead of Result. Is there any way to serialize it. I think Result is a map of Strings only. Antony Paul. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
