On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:00:07PM +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 09/03/2011 13:59, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > > Hi. > > > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> Or make the fields transient? > >>>> > >>>> That would perhaps cause problems if the Exceptions were ever > >>>> serialised, but can that happen? > >>> > >>> Yes, it's a typical JEE scenario and I cannot say how often I cursed Sun > >>> for > >>> stuffing an unserializable object into NamingException.setResolvedObject > >>> within their LDAP implementation ... > >>> > >>> Actually the MathRE should contain a writeObject implementation that > >>> replaces any non-serializable object in that array with some kind of > >>> replacement (e.g. with its String representation). Otherwise the MathRE > >>> will > >>> not reach its destination and all the localization was for nothing. > >> > >> That's a good idea. We could even do that replacement directly at > >> construction and never store the Object themselves, regardless of their > >> status with respect to serialization. > > > > Do you mean storing only the String representation of the arguments? > > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the map feature (which was to allow any > > kind of objects to be stored and retrieved)? > > You are right, I am stupid. So we have to check for serializable.
I don't see why: The serialization will work provided all "Object" arguments are "Serializable"; it is the user's code responsibility to not try serializing the exception when it knows that it contains a non-serializable object. If the exceptions generated from CM contain only serializable objects (which is the case now), then we've done our part. Best, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
