commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <>
Subject Re: [math] Re: commons-math, matrix-toolkits-java and consolidation
Date Fri, 22 May 2009 08:25:24 GMT
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.

Any volunteer to do this rather boring work ?

> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Barker <>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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message