Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:25:15 +0100
From: Gilles Sadowski <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: [math] Re: svn commit: r1078734
Message-ID: <20110309152515.GS22814@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@commons.apache.org
References: <20110307103754.1331923889EB@eris.apache.org>
 <4D768EE6.6050707@free.fr>
 <AANLkTinFGsbWmCfoVhgod+6T9XOaF998GnQbtaV_Wdz9@mail.gmail.com>
 <il6btu$ute$1@dough.gmane.org>
 <4D773ED3.1020607@free.fr>
 <20110309125903.GR22814@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
 <4D7787E7.4070307@free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4D7787E7.4070307@free.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: eir 20002; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:00:07PM +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 09/03/2011 13:59, Gilles Sadowski a �crit :
> > Hi.
> > 
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> Or make the fields transient?
> >>>>
> >>>> That would perhaps cause problems if the Exceptions were ever
> >>>> serialised, but can that happen?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, it's a typical JEE scenario and I cannot say how often I cursed Sun for 
> >>> stuffing an unserializable object into NamingException.setResolvedObject 
> >>> within their LDAP implementation ...
> >>>
> >>> Actually the MathRE should contain a writeObject implementation that 
> >>> replaces any non-serializable object in that array with some kind of 
> >>> replacement (e.g. with its String representation). Otherwise the MathRE will 
> >>> not reach its destination and all the localization was for nothing.
> >>
> >> That's a good idea. We could even do that replacement directly at
> >> construction and never store the Object themselves, regardless of their
> >> status with respect to serialization.
> > 
> > Do you mean storing only the String representation of the arguments?
> > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the map feature (which was to allow any
> > kind of objects to be stored and retrieved)?
> 
> You are right, I am stupid. So we have to check for serializable.

I don't see why: The serialization will work provided all "Object" arguments
are "Serializable"; it is the user's code responsibility to not try
serializing the exception when it knows that it contains a non-serializable
object.
If the exceptions generated from CM contain only serializable objects (which
is the case now), then we've done our part.


Best,
Gilles

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