Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Ted Dunning a écrit :
In favor or not, Serializable shouldn't in in widely used interfaces.
As an example, a Lucene index is a reasonable implementation of a sparse
matrix.
Would you require that I have to figure out how to make it serializable just
because I declare it as a Matrix?
Do you imagine that most developers will do more than just punt in such a
situation if the interface absolutely requires that the object be
serializable?
Leave it to particular implementations to be serializable or not. Please,
please, please don't force it into the contract for all implementations.
So we have reached a consensus: remove Serializable from interfaces and
push it down to implementations only.
+1
Any volunteer to do this rather boring work ?
I wish I could say yes, but I am running out of buffer space atm ;)
Phil
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Barker <billwbar...@verizon.net>wrote:
- I *strongly* urge you to remove Serializable from everything! Please, we
did this in MTJ and it turned out to be a major pain. A more appropriate
approach is to define a class for reading/writing Matrix Market files.
This
can be a new feature in 2.1. If you're going to leave it, at least
document
that the Serializable form is not guaranteed to remain compatible across
versions.
Like Luc, I'm generallly in favor of Serializable. Since some of the posts
on this thread have suggested problems with the current implementation, I'll
try and run some tests over the (what is here, long) weekend. Again, no
consensus so not doing anything immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
