commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <billwbar...@verizon.net>
Subject Re: [math] Serialization
Date Sat, 23 May 2009 07:13:20 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luc Maisonobe" <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: [math] Serialization


> [I changed the subject to help follow the thread]
>
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Ted Dunning a écrit :
>>>
>>>> In favor or not, Serializable shouldn't in in widely used interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> As an example, a Lucene index is a reasonable implementation of a 
>>>> sparse
>>>> matrix.
>>>>
>>>> Would you require that I have to figure out how to make it
>>>> serializable just
>>>> because I declare it as a Matrix?
>>>>
>>>> Do you imagine that most developers will do more than just punt in
>>>> such a
>>>> situation if the interface absolutely requires that the object be
>>>> serializable?
>>>>
>>>> Leave it to particular implementations to be serializable or not.
>>>> Please,
>>>> please, please don't force it into the contract for all 
>>>> implementations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So we have reached a consensus: remove Serializable from interfaces and
>>> push it down to implementations only.
>>>
>> +1
>
> There is one interface at least for which I ask to retain Externalizable
> (not really the same as Serializable, but in the same spirit). It is the
> StepInterpolator interface in the ode.sampling package. Externalization
> for this interface is a desired and important feature used for example
> in the ContinuousOutputModel class. The interface is not intended to be
> implemented by users, and in fact even the class implementing it are not
> directly visible by users: instances are directly built by ODE
> integrators (each integrator has its own interpolator).
>
>>> Any volunteer to do this rather boring work ?

I can take a stab at it (but may have fewer spare cycles than sebb).

>>>
>> I wish I could say yes, but I am running out of buffer space atm ;)
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Barker
>>>> <billwbarker@verizon.net>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - I *strongly* urge you to remove Serializable from everything!
>>>>> Please, we
>>>>>
>>>>>> did this in MTJ and it turned out to be a major pain. A more
>>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>> approach is to define a class for reading/writing Matrix Market 
>>>>>> files.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> can be a new feature in 2.1. If you're going to leave it, at least
>>>>>> document
>>>>>> that the Serializable form is not guaranteed to remain compatible
>>>>>> across
>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Like Luc, I'm generallly in favor of Serializable.  Since some of
>>>>> the posts
>>>>> on this thread have suggested problems with the current
>>>>> implementation, I'll
>>>>> try and run some tests over the (what is here, long) weekend.
>>>>> Again, no
>>>>> consensus so not doing anything immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message