Hi Emmanuel,

On Feb 1, 2008 6:31 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
...

This AttributesSerializer can be rewritten and moved to handle
ServerEntry, assuming that :
1) we pass a Registries reference to the JdbmMasterTable constructor
2) the AttributesSerializer class is moved to core-entry
3) we pass the registries to this class :

   public JdbmMasterTable( Registries registries, RecordManager recMan
) throws NamingException
   {
       super( DBF, recMan, LONG_COMPARATOR, LongSerializer.INSTANCE,
new AttributesSerializer( registries ) );
   ...

<NOTE>
    I have re-factored this class heavily in my private branch and it has been generified btw.  This is kind of cool because it means we can reuse this for storing and indexing any kind of objects, not just entries.  Anyways more points below about all this.  But please note that all changes here I'd like to do in the private branch so we don't have a serious conflict nightmare.
</NOTE>

What do you think about this alternative idea?  We extend a JDBM Serializer which can serialize and deserialize.  Take a look at it, it's part of the JDBM API.  The subtype can be ServerEntrySerializer and we implement the serialize and deserialize methods.  Whatever creates this ServerEntrySerializer can stuff it with the registries so we don't have to have Registries exposed to these classes or to this package.

Another thing we could do is create our own JDBM neutral/independent interface with these serialize and deserialize methods: call it Marshaller.  We can create an implementation that specifically handles the [de]serialization of ServerEntry objects.  And we can make this parameterized (generified).  Then we can mandate that the MasterTable<E> class take a Marshaller<E> in it's constructor.  The constructor can then wrap this up in a Serializer inner class specifically suited for JDBM.  We can make sure the reference to the Marshaller is a transient handle that can be set when we create a MasterTable in case JDBM does something funny and desides to store this thing into it's db files.

Now this Marshaller can be used anywhere we need to serialize the entry, over the network with Mitosis or to disk with the JDBM and potentially other partition implementations.

WDYT?
 

So, wdyt ? Is it OK to modify the API this way ?

I think the proposed mechanism will create too much interdependency especially between modules.

Alex