I actually *do* have that, but this code recently went through some ... surgery that left things in a rather sloppy state. Clearly not the most prize worthy section of code. :)
On Nov 27, 2007 10:43 PM, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Evan Chooly wrote: > > So here's the skinny: while my subclass was marked as serializable, the > > parent class was not. So no state from the parent class got serialized > nor, > > not so surprisingly, deserialized. After adding that implements clause > > things miraculously started working. So a big "you idiot" for me and a > big > > thanks to igor for pointing me to the Objects.cloneObject() method to > help > > write unit tests to highlight my otherwise obvious error. > > In an earlier project I also made a check on the main page > that serialised it to memory on every request in development > mode. It might be a good idea to do something like this but > make it check that the cloned object is equal to the > original. > > Yours is a nasty case as in that serialisation seems to fail > (or rather work in a broken way) silently. > > For persistent objects (you said the parent class was a > @MappedSuperclass right?) it often makes sense to make them > inherit or implement a common base class / interface that > implements / extends Serializable. > > Best wishes, > Timo > > -- > Timo Rantalaiho > Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
