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/i...
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(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev