On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 20:09, Daniel Rall wrote: > Aaron Smuts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't like the idea of getting unseriaizable exceptions from > > methods that ask for an Object. > > I'm not particularly enchanted by this either. Perhaps two > CacheAccess interfaces are in order (one which support Object and one > which supports Serializable)?
Wow, I was thinking the exact same thing. I'd see a point in the future where there is one composite cache manager, but it can return different cache access implementations for different needs. Of course, since they would have different methods (serialiable / object) casting on the client would still be required... Worth pursuing if we can pull it off though. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
