> [...] > > However, adding Serializable still means devising and implementing the > appropriate unit tests. > > == > > I'm not saying don't do it, just that it involves a lot more work than > might be obvious initially.
[Oh, I said that I would not fight over this... :-#] But the arguments here make me raise at least a -0 on having a liberal use of "implements Serializable". That would be a virtual -1 if we think that a lot of resources are to be devoted to make (and check that) everything works as advertised by the "Serializable" contract. [I still have to understand why objects that represent mathematical algorithms must be serializable. It is quite possible that I miss somehing but a use-case would help. In principle, I'd think that we must provide accessors that would enable user code to re-construct any CM object; then it's up to the user code to create any "Serializable" object for storing those data they want to send over the wire, and reconstruct the CM object on the other end...] Best, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
