Thanks, Adam Could you please explain me some more details and specific circumstances for StateHolder?
Yura. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Winer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 2:23 AM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: NotSerializableException during saveState I'd recommend implementing Serializable. StateHolder is only relevant in specific circumstances, and if you're not the sort who likes memorizing the JSF spec in detail, you'll be much better of just always implementing Serializable. All scenarios that support StateHolder also support Serializable, whereas the converse is not true. -- Adam Winer On 3/30/06, Yura.Tkachenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One little remark, when I trys to implement Serializable instead of > StateHolder everything works, but I want to know is this my issue in bean > with StateHolder or not? > > Thanks, > Yura. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:54 PM > To: MyFaces Discussion > Subject: Re: NotSerializableException during saveState > > On 3/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > javax.faces.FacesException: > > java.io.NotSerializableException: > > com.nsite.wsbuilder.TableFiltersBean > > > > at > > org.apache.myfaces.util.StateUtils.encode64(StateUtils.java:43) > > Is com.nsite.wsbuilder.TableFiltersBean the bean you have implemented > StateHolder on? If not, that's the problem. If so, you'll probably > need to post the bean code, but it doesn't look like it implements > StateHolder from the stacktrace. > >
