And 1.x branch doesn't compile because of it. Martijn
On 11/22/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 As a side note, it is also in the 1.x branch Martijn On 11/22/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yes +1 > > it doesn't make any sense to me that a response is serialize (a response is > more or less a outputstream....) > > Everytime we did find a problem now it was a bug that a response object was > kept around. > So let it be not serializeable. A special subclass (like string response > ok.. that could be but i am even not pro that > just store the string!) > > johan > > > > On 11/22/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I just update W2 and it doesn't compile, as the classes extended from > > Response don't declare serial version uid. So it seem that Eelco made > > response serializable. Johan and I think that it's a bad idea to have > > Response implements serializable. I personally have found numerous bugs > > just because response failed to serialize. (missing detachs, etc.) > > > > I think if anyone need to Serialize response (String response), he > > should make it's own derivate and make it implement Serializable. > > > > So this is a vote. Should we remove Serializable from Response? > > > > Me: +1 > > > > -Matej > > > > -- <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote</a> for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket";>Wicket</a> at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in the World!</a>
-- <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote</a> for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket";>Wicket</a> at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in the World!</a>
