commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [Math] Serializable (again)
Date Tue, 08 May 2012 11:51:49 GMT
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:22:38PM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 2012/5/8 Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidhart@gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
> > gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >
> >> > I am in favor of this second option: add Serializable were needed upon
> >> > > request.
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >> > > In this case, the request seems fair as the class is mainly a
> >> > > simple container for two values.
> >> >
> >> > But what ever the size/complexity, adding Serializable needs to be
> >> > done carefully, and documented as necessary using @serial,
> >> > @serialField, @serialData tags.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> I am _not_ going to work on that. [Plenty of arguments given previously
> >> saying exactly that: it must be done seriously. It is not so in CM. And
> >> (IMHO) it is not necessary for CM to support "Serializable" (also argued
> >> previously).]
> >>
> >> > Just adding "implements Serializable" is a bad idea.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> So?  [I guess I'm not going to do anything myself on this issue.]
> >>
> >
> > I think we should implement it where it is requested and makes sense (like
> > results of a computation). But then in a proper way (should be defined in
> > the developers guide or even the wiki as best practice to follow).
> > For other cases we can just skip it, but please, do not remove Serializable
> > just because you don't like it (as it happened in the case for the
> > referenced issue).
> >
> > Thomas
> I have mixed feelings on this issue. I guess that everyone agrees that
> serialization must be done properly. Like Gilles, I'm not going to
> work on this issue, probably for other reasons
> 1. I certainly do not have the required expertise (and do not have the
> time to acquire it at the moment). Which makes me wonder about
> maintenance of serializable classes. Committers like myself reviewing
> other people's patches on serializable classes, might well be
> innocently committing a patch which should not be. To prevent that, we
> should make sure that we do have some "serialization referees" in the
> CM community, which might overload these people.

+1
However because there are no such referrees, support of "Serializable"
should be ruled out.

> 2. I think there are many more urgent issues (only my opinion,
> though), like the open issues about precision in the distribution
> package, or the implementation of more special functions, which is a
> quite time consuming, but necessary task.

+1

One of the previous arguments: CM is a collection of (math) algorithms
rather than data structures meant for exchange outside of CM itself.


Regards,
Gilles

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


Mime
View raw message