You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2004/09/07 23:01:19 UTC
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 31091] -
[collections] Collection inside Abstract[AnyCollection]Decorator really needed to be transient?
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31091>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31091
[collections] Collection inside Abstract[AnyCollection]Decorator really needed to be transient?
scolebourne@joda.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME
Summary|Collection inside |[collections] Collection
|Abstract[AnyCollection]Decor|inside
|ator really needed to be |Abstract[AnyCollection]Decor
|transient? |ator really needed to be
| |transient?
------- Additional Comments From scolebourne@joda.org 2004-09-07 21:01 -------
The transient tag is merely a marker to emphasise that the field will not be
serialized automatically.
Since the Abstract*Decorator classes do not implement the Serializable
interface themselves, the transient marker actually has no effect. Each
subclass that IS serializable must manually store the map field using
readObject/writeObject methods, as per the serialization spec.
The reason behind all of this is to maintain backwards compatability of
Abstract*Decorator from v3.1 to v3.0, by not forcing all decorators to be
serializable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org