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. Any volunteer to do this rather boring work ? > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Barker <billwbar...@verizon.net>wrote: > >> - I *strongly* urge you to remove Serializable from everything! Please, we >>> did this in MTJ and it turned out to be a major pain. A more appropriate >>> approach is to define a class for reading/writing Matrix Market files. >>> This >>> can be a new feature in 2.1. If you're going to leave it, at least >>> document >>> that the Serializable form is not guaranteed to remain compatible across >>> versions. >>> >>> >> Like Luc, I'm generallly in favor of Serializable. Since some of the posts >> on this thread have suggested problems with the current implementation, I'll >> try and run some tests over the (what is here, long) weekend. Again, no >> consensus so not doing anything immediately. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
