On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Doug Lea <d...@cs.oswego.edu> wrote: > On 09/20/11 12:29, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> I've been stumbled upon this for a bit. >> Is there any specific reason DelayQueue is not serializable? Or is it >> an API bug? The backing PriorityQueue *is* serializable. > It was a deliberate decision. > DelayQueues use relative times, so the delays don't make sense > when deserialized at an arbitrary time. And there's no way to > guarantee a correct clock resync to re-normalize.
Yes, I understand the concern. However, I don't think it should be enforced by contract. I would argue that is a developer job to tolerate these scenarios. I had met the example when you store Delayed elements with delays in hours, but really try to serialize-deserialize DelayQueue to migrate the data from one server instance to the other, which takes seconds to do. In this scenario, non-serializable DelayQueue is more of hassle. > Plus, no one has ever complained about this, so we > haven't ever revisited it. Can we revisit it some day in the future? From the code perspective, it appears to be point change. Is it the scope for JEP? -Aleksey.
