Den 08.07.2011 21:28, skrev Greg Brown:
Den 08.07.2011 21:04, skrev Greg Brown:
Sorry, I wasn't clear either. :-) I should have asked "what do you mean by
'it'"? In other words, what do you think breaks the contract defined by Serializer?
That's what I tried to say with this sentence:
"If you write an object you expect to get the same object back when you read back
the stream you wrote earlier. If you add some mutator to it, that's not serialization
anymore, that's something else IMHO".
Right, I read that but I wasn't sure what you were getting at. What
specifically do you think would violate this reciprocity?
The first principle I think of when I hear the word Serializer, is that
you can write an object, and later read that same object back again.
Even if you do it over and over, you'd still get the same object.
If the "ebxml" file mutates the object, let's say to create a collection
somewhere in the hierarchy, then writing this object back to "ebxml"
again would probably describe a collection instead of the original
markup that described an object to be mutated, right? The collection
won't have information on it to be able to reverse-engineer it back to
the same state when writeObject is called.
-- Edvin
