But gives it the Deep clone size? If it doesn't it is useless
johan On 2/13/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think now that we're dependent on JDK 1.5+, there is a JMX-related sizeof method we can use to find out the exact size of a given object in memory. We might want to switch to that. Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > On 2/12/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thats fine. >> Already thought about it where we let the Objects class look at a setting >> where >> you can choose what every you want. >> But i don't think that is really a choice many people will use. But if >> they >> can come up with a better way for serialization and deserialization thats >> fine with me > > I just want to make sure we have a fallback for people to use in case > we have some unforseen bug in our mechanism or their security > environment doesn't allow for some of the things we do or they have > some other reason to prefer another (i.e. Java's default) > serialization mechanism. > >> We just have to make sure that those 2 methods are called always when we >> do >> the clone or save... >> For example the sizeOf methods should also be altered! > > I wouldn't have a problem with sizeOf depending on it more directly if > there isn't a practical way around it (though I'm sure there is); > that's merely a utility whereas serialization for versions is a > central piece of the framework. > > Eelco > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/custom-serialization-seems-to-work...-tf3210889.html#a8938197 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
