geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: Java serizalization compatibility issues
Date Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:41:39 GMT
Ditto, sorry.  (Still not a fan of serialized configs :)

-David

On Sep 23, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> My bad Jeremy.  You are correct.  I latched onto serialization and  
> immediately went to configuration.  I realized the error of my ways  
> this morning when you mentioned the plugin.   Doh.
>
> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>> Sachin Patel wrote: "This is because eclipse can not reference  
>> classes or jars at runtime that are not packaged within a plug-in  
>> and marked as visible in either the plugin.xml or manifest. A big  
>> problem resides as now the same jars I'm packaging must be the  
>> same exact jars that reside in the target server I'm deploying.   
>> This causes a dependency on a particular server image."
>> This thread wasn't about configuration files but about  
>> communication between JVMs. Sachin's plugin fails when talking to  
>> the server because there are different versions of the classes in  
>> the Eclipse client and in the running server.
>> RMI is the only transport guaranteed to be available by the JMX  
>> remoting specification. To use it the classes passed on the wire  
>> must be Serializable. We do not control the versions used on  
>> either end and hence need to ensure that skewed versions can  
>> interoperate. This means following the rules for serialization  
>> compatibility (such as adding serialUIDs).
>> -- 
>> Jeremy
>> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not being totally familiar with all the nuances in G WRT to  
>>>> serialization my comments should be taken with a grain of salt.   
>>>> From my perspetive there are two major problems with serialized  
>>>> data.  One, its very fragile
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and two you can't change it if you need to.  One could argue  
>>>> users shouldn't be changing it but in extreme circumstances it  
>>>> is unavoidable.
>>>>
>>>> I'd vote for the move to XML (ouch, did I say that?)
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My inclination as well. I've been scratching my head trying to  
>>> understand 'why serialization?' rather than nice, flat, intuitive  
>>> text files. There may be a very good answer I just don't what it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sachin's problem is not related to configuration persistence  
>>>>> but to the serialization of classes between plugin and server  
>>>>> when using JMX remoting over RMI.
>>>>>
>>>>> The upshot of it all is unless we are going to ditch all use of  
>>>>> serialization and replace it with XML then we need to exercise  
>>>>> the necessary discipline and version the classes involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message