I made a decision to use object serialization because Configuration is a really complex object now and likely to change. Field-by-field cloning is very brittle as it is easy to forget to clone newly added fields. But if we are careful.... I see that Mircea changed this to field-by-field clone. We should perhaps add a note for maintenance of these fields.

Cheers

On 8/4/09 2:15 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:

Hmm, that is weird.

Don't intent to point fingers or anything :) but Vladimir [1], any  
specific reason to handle clone() in this way?

Cheers
Manik

[1] http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/Infinispan/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/infinispan/config/Configuration.java?r=625

On 4 Aug 2009, at 12:33, Mircea Markus wrote:

Hi,

Configuration.clone is implemented with object serialization. AFAIK  
this
is not a good practice for several reasons, one of them is that all  
the
objects aggregated  by Configuration must be serializable. While this
*might* be ok for Configuration elements within our scope (infinispan)
this will unnecessarily enforce the extensions (e.g.
<aCustomCacheStore>Configuration) to be serializable.

Cheers,
Mircea
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev


--
Manik Surtani
manik@jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org




_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev