Le 04/01/2012 02:21, Sébastien Brisard a écrit : > Hi, > I'm currently working on MATH-677 (cleaning-up o.a.c.m.transforms). I > notice that all classes in this package implement Serializable. I'm > wondering whether there is a practical use for this. If not, I would > rather remove this functionality. What do you think?
I like to have everything serializable (but probably belong to a minority here). My rationale is that when a user put one of our class as a field in its own classes and need his classes to be serializable, he needs to have our classes serializable. This also is almost never a problem to add this, as it is often simply a matter of declaring an interface and putting a static serializable ID field. I use it a lot for ODE step handlers for example, as it allows to store the complete history thoughout an integration run and reuse it later. As there are pointers back and forth between various parts (step handlers, events handlers, integrator ...) many classes in this package must be serializable. I guess similar rationale may apply to other packages. Luc > > Sébastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
