[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NET-463?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13402329#comment-13402329
]
Bogdan Drozdowski commented on NET-463:
---
Having classes Serializable is useful when you have to use them remotely (e.g.
through RMI, CORBA, EJB or similar means), because the objects are passed by
reference when they're serializable (instead of being passed by value, which
may be expensive). An EJB or RMI server could be a provider/factory of, say,
SocekClient instances, that callers wish to use. I don't know if a real-life
example like this could ever happen, but it's certainly one use for
serializability.
Does it make sense for NET classes to be Serializable?
--
Key: NET-463
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NET-463
Project: Commons Net
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Sebb
A few of the NET classes currently implement Serializable.
However, it's doubtful that serialization would actually work.
There are no unit tests.
Also, what is the use-case for it?
Can we drop the Serializable references?
The classes that implement Serializable currently are:
ftp.FTPFile
ntp.TimeStamp
util.ListenerList (contains non-serialisable field of type
CopyOnWriteArrayList)
ProtocolCommandSupport
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
