Hi, sure, no problem: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EMPIREDB-97
Regards, Eike On [Sat, 22.01.2011 19:36], Francis De Brabandere wrote: > Hi Eike, > > Would you mind creating an issue for this in our issue tracker? > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EMPIREDB > > Thanks, > Francis > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Eike Kettner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Rainer and Francis, > > > > thanks for your quick replies and for giving this a chance. Serializing > > an exception is sure not something massive used, however sometimes it is > > quite a nice feature. For example, a JMSLogger sends log events to a > > broker, and there exceptions are serialized. Well, I see that this is > > not used often, and more or less a "special case" :). Still, I would > > consider a non-serializable exception a small "bug" - just because it's > > dictated by the java api. > > > > I had a quick look at the sources and as far as I can see, it should be > > ok to make "everything" serializable. There is always the > > "serializable-drawback" to consider: users can save objects on disk and > > later try to load them with a new version of empire-db, where class > > definitions have changed. Well, I think one can live with this, and it > > does not apply to many other use-cases of serialization (rmi, > > serialization used in wicket or messaging), because objects are > > serialized only for a short amount of time. > > > > Regards, > > Eike > > > > > > > > On [Sat, 22.01.2011 13:49], Rainer Döbele wrote: > >> Hi Eike, > >> > >> I agree with Francis that I don't quite see the point for serializing an > >> Exception, although I must admit that java.lang.Throwable is Serializable. > >> > >> But then I agree that we should consider making DBObject or ErrorObject > >> serializeable which then would apply to the entire object hierarchy. > >> Regards > >> > >> Rainer > >> > >> > >> Francis De Brabandere wrote: > >> > from: Francis De Brabandere [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > to: [email protected] > >> > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException > >> > > >> > Hi Eike, > >> > > >> > I see no reason for not making them Serializable. > >> > > >> > Rainer? > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Francis > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Hello, > >> > > > >> > > I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error. > >> > > EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending > >> > RuntimeException) > >> > > but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are not > >> > > serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown. > >> > > > >> > > When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about > >> > making > >> > > some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since most > >> > or all > >> > > DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for them > >> > to > >> > > be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket which > >> > > both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example, I'd > >> > > like to pass around where and order-by expressions). > >> > > > >> > > Kind Regards, > >> > > Eike > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > http://www.somatik.be > >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > >> > > > > -- > > email: [email protected] https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 > > > > > > -- > http://www.somatik.be > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > -- email: [email protected] https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
