commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bogdan Drozdowski (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (NET-463) Does it make sense for NET classes to be Serializable?
Date Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:28:43 GMT


Bogdan Drozdowski commented on NET-463:

Having classes Serializable is useful when you have to use them remotely (e.g. through RMI,
CORBA, EJB or similar means), because the objects are passed by reference when they're serializable
(instead of being passed by value, which may be expensive). An EJB or RMI server could be
a provider/factory of, say, SocekClient instances, that callers wish to use. I don't know
if a real-life example like this could ever happen, but it's certainly one use for serializability.
> Does it make sense for NET classes to be Serializable?
> ------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: NET-463
>                 URL:
>             Project: Commons Net
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Sebb
> A few of the NET classes currently implement Serializable.
> However, it's doubtful that serialization would actually work.
> There are no unit tests.
> Also, what is the use-case for it?
> Can we drop the Serializable references?
> The classes that implement Serializable currently are:
> ftp.FTPFile
> ntp.TimeStamp
> util.ListenerList (contains non-serialisable field of type CopyOnWriteArrayList)
> ProtocolCommandSupport

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


View raw message