I think this is a general issue with different caching services in Java, many of which require objects to be serializable. As Kevin says patches with tests are welcome :)
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Viji Subramanian < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am looking at caching the gadgetSpec so that we can avoid the expensive > > Xml Parsing everytime the gadget manifest is fetched [either remote / > from > > cache]. I see that most of the fields in gadget spec are private - and > it > > doesn't implement serializable.. So, i am pretty much left with java > > reflection if I want to serialize gadgetSpec. which would then involve > > extending the same technique for all other objects like ModulePref, > UserPref > > etc.. > > > The specs themselves are pretty trivially cached in memory (the default > implementation uses an LRU cache). Retrieval of remote files (including > gadget specs) is done by implementing HttpCache. Are you really gaining > anything by remotely caching the parsed gadget specs? > > > > Are there any plans to make the gadgetSpec and related classes implement > > Serializable.. ? > > Any other suggestions.. or thoughts around this ? .. > > > Patches are always welcome :) > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Kevin Brown wrote: > > > >> The simple answer is that we haven't yet had any real need to serialize > it > >> (though some caching implementations might benefit from this). > >> > >> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Viji Subramanian < > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Is there a reason why GadgetSpec is not serializable ? why doesn't it > >>> implement serializable ? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
