commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <>
Subject Re: [math] Serializable transforms (MATH-677)?
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:14:10 GMT
Le 04/01/2012 10:06, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
> 2012/1/4 Luc Maisonobe <>:
>> Le 04/01/2012 02:21, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm currently working on MATH-677 (cleaning-up o.a.c.m.transforms). I
>>> notice that all classes in this package implement Serializable. I'm
>>> wondering whether there is a practical use for this. If not, I would
>>> rather remove this functionality. What do you think?
>> I like to have everything serializable (but probably belong to a
>> minority here). My rationale is that when a user put one of our class as
>> a field in its own classes and need his classes to be serializable, he
>> needs to have our classes serializable. This also is almost never a
>> problem to add this, as it is often simply a matter of declaring an
>> interface and putting a static serializable ID field.
>> I use it a lot for ODE step handlers for example, as it allows to store
>> the complete history thoughout an integration run and reuse it later. As
>> there are pointers back and forth between various parts (step handlers,
>> events handlers, integrator ...) many classes in this package must be
>> serializable. I guess similar rationale may apply to other packages.
>> Luc
> Actually, I didn't realize that the use-case you are talking about
> could apply to my simulations as well... which make heavy use of FFTs.
> So maybe it's better to keep this functionality. Only, I need to be
> very rigorous with serial version uids ;). Or is it at release time
> that we care about regenerating these numbers? Is this task somehow
> automated?

No, the task is not fully automated. I used to rely on eclipse
generation for this (i.e. I suppressed the field, and when eclipse fired
a warning I selected an automatic generation in its warning quick fix
context menu.

However, since then there has been a discussion on the list and it was
suggested to simply use the date of last file edition for that, in a
format like 20120104 for todays date for example. This has the
additional advantage that it provides a hint to know when the class had
a large change involving fields modifications for example.


> Sébastien
>>> Sébastien
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message