"galder.zamarreno(a)jboss.com" wrote : | So, in spite of agreeing with Jason's statement in https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBCACHE-1336 earlier today: | | anonymous wrote : It might be more useful to define type marshallers outside of the type since most of our magic numbers apply to types not under our control (JDK types). | | I don't think this might apply any longer if the above points can be resolved. IOW, all types that are not under our control would already be handled by JBoss Marshalling which means that we can concentrate on our types and we could then use @Marshallable annotations. | Not true. Outside of our control != JDK classes. E.g., a JGroups IpAddress is something we marshall. We can't annotate these and JBoss Marshalling certainly doesn't know about this. :-) While I agree that using annotations is more natural, I sadly think that this is inadequate. Perhaps what we could do is to use annotations for classes under our control, and then supplement with an XML based magic-map for classes outside of our control. Adds unnecessary complexity, but I can see how this does make the code easier, more readable. We would definitely need a unit test though to ensure we don't have colliding magic numbers. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219827#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...