Re: [Vote] proposal: Clusterable instead of Serializable

[Jonathan Locke <jo...@gmail.com>]

+1


Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm making an inventory of classes that should be instrumented by
> Terracotta if you deploy for them. I have a whole bunch of classes and
> interfaces like PopupSettings and IPageable and IPagingLabelProvider
> that are serializable which typically means in the context of Wicket
> that they should be available for serializing. Now, just telling
> Terracotta to instrument everything that implements Serializable isn't
> gonna work as that is way to course and touches classes outside the
> scope of Wicket easily (think of all the hibernate classes etc you
> might use).
> 
> I'd like to propose introducing an interface like 'Clusterable' that
> simply extends Serializable and replacing all the classes in Wicket
> that implement Serializable to implement that instead. Not only would
> that communicate our intend a little bit better, but it would also
> mean that we could just tell the Terracotta config file to instrument
> all implementations of that interface and be done with it. Thats
> easier to get to a good configuration for Terracotta now *and* if we
> keep on playing by those rules for the Wicket projects, we can
> refactor what we want without ever having to be worried about breaking
> a Terracotta configuration (not to mention having to maintain several
> versions of that configuration).
> 
> Any grave objections to this? Eugene, will that work?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Eelco
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/proposal%3A-Clusterable-instead-of-Serializable-tf3321735.html#a9243253
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.