----- Original Message -----
From: "Luc Maisonobe" <luc.maison...@free.fr>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: [math] Serialization
[I changed the subject to help follow the thread]
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
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.
+1
There is one interface at least for which I ask to retain Externalizable
(not really the same as Serializable, but in the same spirit). It is the
StepInterpolator interface in the ode.sampling package. Externalization
for this interface is a desired and important feature used for example
in the ContinuousOutputModel class. The interface is not intended to be
implemented by users, and in fact even the class implementing it are not
directly visible by users: instances are directly built by ODE
integrators (each integrator has its own interpolator).
Any volunteer to do this rather boring work ?
I can take a stab at it (but may have fewer spare cycles than sebb).
I wish I could say yes, but I am running out of buffer space atm ;)
Phil
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
