On Aug 24, 2011, at 10:37 PM, Andreas Pieber wrote: > Because the karaf-webconsole. Wicket serializes the objects in a session.
Do you know where there is an explanation of why they do this? > The alternative to make them serializable in Karaf is to "expand & store the > relevant data" in serializable karaf-webconsole objects. This would also be > possible, but I'm not sure if it isn't easier/better to make those plain > java-beans serializable (that's why I put this on discussion :-)) Knowing more about what the motivation is at wicket would make it easier for me to think about this..... so far the wicket behavior just seems bizarre to me but I suppose there must be a good reason. It certainly seems like a big nuisance to have to write serializable copies of everything. thanks david jencks > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:27, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Can you explain why you want this? I think serializable objects usually >> lead to nothing but trouble. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On Aug 24, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Andreas Pieber wrote: >> >>> While it is not required for the karaf-webconsole it would still help if >>> various "simple java bean objects" in Karaf would be serializable. This >> is >>> not required, but on the other hand I don't consider it bad practice to >> make >>> objects which should only contain plain values serializable. In specific >> I >>> propose (for now at least :-)) to make the following interfaces >>> serializable: >>> >>> # modified: >>> features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/BundleInfo.java >>> # modified: >>> features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/ConfigFileInfo.java >>> # modified: >>> features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/Feature.java >>> >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Andreas >> >>
