On 22/05/2009, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote: > sebb a écrit : > > > On 22/05/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 can make a start on it. > > > > I suggest that the implementations are flagged (e.g. with TODOs) until > > the serialization implementation has been checked and documented. > > > > WDYT? > > It sounds good. Many thanks. > >
Just started to look at this, and the first interface I checked is MultivariateMatrixFunction. This does not have any implementations, except for anonymous classes in some Test classes. In this case, presumably only the interface needs to be updated? Would it be useful to record in the Javadoc is the interface used to have Serializable? [As well as in the release notes, of course] I think this might be useful, but if no-one else does, then there's no point doing it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
