Thanks Jack and Joe for your choices. I will go ahead and implement the option #1.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Jack Cai <greensight@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting... Since the problem is really that FileKeystoreInstance is not seriazable, I don't see why changing the getter return type would help if the received objects are still instances of FileKeystoreInstance. Anyway, I agree with Joe - Option 1 looks more elegant.

-Jack


On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Ashish Jain <ashjain2@gmail.com> wrote:
The serialization problem is popping up due to the return type associated with getKeystores(). But in the case of getKeystores1() there is no return variable. So it helps in overcoming this problem.


On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jack Cai <greensight@gmail.com> wrote:
I still don't quite understand Option 2. So what would be stored in this new attribute "keystores1"? If it still contains an instance of FileKeystoreInstance, then there is still a serialization problem.

-Jack


On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ashish Jain <ashjain2@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Joe,

Thanks for your comments. The intent of using option #2 was to make use of getAttribute and also since modifying the KeystoreManager interface will not have any effect on any existing functionalities. However as you pointed out a get method w/o any return types may be misleading.

Thanks
Ashish


On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:
I don't know much about the details of the problem but it seems to me that you would either make the class serializable (option #1) or exclude it from serialization if it is not necessary.  I don't see how this would impact any existing functions.  So I guess I would vote for #1.

I don't understand why you would want to have a "get*" method that doesn't return anything - but perhaps I'm missing the point of option #2.

Joe



Ashish Jain wrote:
Hi ALL,

I have opened up a JIRA GERONIMO-5180 on the unlockKeystore command failure if keystore is created with keytool.exe. I was trying to fix this issue
which requires some changes in the class declaration or interface. Following code is being utilized to fix up the issue
KeystoreInstance[] keystores=(KeystoreInstance[])kernel.getAttribute(abstractName,"keystores"); where  abstractName is obtained through
"org.apache.geronimo.management.geronimo.KeystoreManager". However I hit the following exception:

java.rmi.UnmarshalException: error unmarshalling return; nested exception is:
       java.io.WriteAbortedException: writing aborted; java.io.NotSerializableE
xception: org.apache.geronimo.security.keystore.FileKeystoreInstance
       at sun.rmi.server.UnicastRef.invoke(UnicastRef.java:172)
       at com.sun.jmx.remote.internal.PRef.invoke(Unknown Source)
       at javax.management.remote.rmi.RMIConnectionImpl_Stub.invoke(RMIConnecti
onImpl_Stub.java:400)
       at javax.management.remote.rmi.RMIConnector$RemoteMBeanServerConnection.
invoke(RMIConnector.java:984)

There are 2 ways to fix this up.

1) Make the class org.apache.geronimo.security.keystore.FileKeystoreInstance serializable.
2) add a new variable in FileKeystoreManager and add a new method in KeystoreManager which does not return anything and just gives a call
to getKeystores(). For example getKeystores1() as the new method in KeystoreManager and a new variable as keystores1.

I shall prefer #2 over #1 as it should not have any effect on existing functionalities.

Suggestions/advice/comments??

Thanks
Ashish