This has been an interesting thread. It is heartening to see serializer improvements that will be taken up.
Great work, Scott! Soumen Sarkar. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Nichol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Confusing issue on Maps > To bring back the discussion to Maps and Collections, I think that they should > be better supported explicitly, so that I can have Collections in Maps and so > on, without trying to figure out what does actually happen deep inside > classes, or superclasses. Thanks for getting us back to the original topic. Are you saying that you would like to have more of the Java data structure interfaces and classes (e.g. Collection, Map, subinterfaces and classes implementing them) registered with [de-]serializers internally, so that you don't have to think about them when you are coding, e.g. to remember to specify Map.class rather than just using myMap.getClass()? That seems pretty reasonable. I think that the absence of this is mostly historical. Until recent releases, Apache SOAP compiled and ran on JDK 1.1, so only Hashtable and Vector had built-in [de-]serializers. (And I notice that it is Hashtable, not Dictionary, so that Hashtable users did not have to always specify Dictionary.class as the Java type.) I will look at adding the other mappings. Thanks for starting the most interesting thread on this list in recent memory! Scott Nichol -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
