commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Neidhart <>
Subject Re: [Math] Make everything "Serializable" ?
Date Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:35:25 GMT
On 02/11/2012 06:46 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:

> [I still have to understand why objects that represent mathematical
> algorithms must be serializable. It is quite possible that I miss somehing
> but a use-case would help. In principle, I'd think that we must provide
> accessors that would enable user code to re-construct any CM object; then
> it's up to the user code to create any "Serializable" object for storing
> those data they want to send over the wire, and reconstruct the CM object
> on the other end...]

I think you have a good point in general, but the case where this 
discussion started is not as clear-cut as this. In fact, many algorithms 
in CM are a mixture of data structures and algorithms bound together 
using OO paradigms, which may not be always the best solution.

So my conclusion would be to work on improving the code to be more 
functional and separate algorithms / data. In the mean time we can 
support the users by making their lives easier and support serialization 
by default where possible. If somebody has to work on a use-case that 
requires more sophisticated methods, well, he/she will have to find a 
solution anyway.


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

View raw message