You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@empire-db.apache.org by Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org> on 2011/01/21 16:31:55 UTC
Serialization of EmpireException
Hello,
I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error.
EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending RuntimeException)
but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are not
serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about making
some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since most or all
DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for them to
be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket which
both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example, I'd
like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
Kind Regards,
Eike
Re: Serialization of EmpireException
Posted by Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org>.
Hi,
sure, no problem: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EMPIREDB-97
Regards,
Eike
On [Sat, 22.01.2011 19:36], Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> Hi Eike,
>
> Would you mind creating an issue for this in our issue tracker?
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EMPIREDB
>
> Thanks,
> Francis
>
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org> wrote:
> > Hi Rainer and Francis,
> >
> > thanks for your quick replies and for giving this a chance. Serializing
> > an exception is sure not something massive used, however sometimes it is
> > quite a nice feature. For example, a JMSLogger sends log events to a
> > broker, and there exceptions are serialized. Well, I see that this is
> > not used often, and more or less a "special case" :). Still, I would
> > consider a non-serializable exception a small "bug" - just because it's
> > dictated by the java api.
> >
> > I had a quick look at the sources and as far as I can see, it should be
> > ok to make "everything" serializable. There is always the
> > "serializable-drawback" to consider: users can save objects on disk and
> > later try to load them with a new version of empire-db, where class
> > definitions have changed. Well, I think one can live with this, and it
> > does not apply to many other use-cases of serialization (rmi,
> > serialization used in wicket or messaging), because objects are
> > serialized only for a short amount of time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eike
> >
> >
> >
> > On [Sat, 22.01.2011 13:49], Rainer Döbele wrote:
> >> Hi Eike,
> >>
> >> I agree with Francis that I don't quite see the point for serializing an Exception, although I must admit that java.lang.Throwable is Serializable.
> >>
> >> But then I agree that we should consider making DBObject or ErrorObject serializeable which then would apply to the entire object hierarchy.
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Rainer
> >>
> >>
> >> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >> > from: Francis De Brabandere [mailto:francisdb@gmail.com]
> >> > to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> >> > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
> >> >
> >> > Hi Eike,
> >> >
> >> > I see no reason for not making them Serializable.
> >> >
> >> > Rainer?
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Francis
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hello,
> >> > >
> >> > > I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error.
> >> > > EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending
> >> > RuntimeException)
> >> > > but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are not
> >> > > serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
> >> > >
> >> > > When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about
> >> > making
> >> > > some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since most
> >> > or all
> >> > > DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for them
> >> > to
> >> > > be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket which
> >> > > both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example, I'd
> >> > > like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
> >> > >
> >> > > Kind Regards,
> >> > > Eike
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > http://www.somatik.be
> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >>
> >
> > --
> > email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
Re: Serialization of EmpireException
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Eike,
Would you mind creating an issue for this in our issue tracker?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EMPIREDB
Thanks,
Francis
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org> wrote:
> Hi Rainer and Francis,
>
> thanks for your quick replies and for giving this a chance. Serializing
> an exception is sure not something massive used, however sometimes it is
> quite a nice feature. For example, a JMSLogger sends log events to a
> broker, and there exceptions are serialized. Well, I see that this is
> not used often, and more or less a "special case" :). Still, I would
> consider a non-serializable exception a small "bug" - just because it's
> dictated by the java api.
>
> I had a quick look at the sources and as far as I can see, it should be
> ok to make "everything" serializable. There is always the
> "serializable-drawback" to consider: users can save objects on disk and
> later try to load them with a new version of empire-db, where class
> definitions have changed. Well, I think one can live with this, and it
> does not apply to many other use-cases of serialization (rmi,
> serialization used in wicket or messaging), because objects are
> serialized only for a short amount of time.
>
> Regards,
> Eike
>
>
>
> On [Sat, 22.01.2011 13:49], Rainer Döbele wrote:
>> Hi Eike,
>>
>> I agree with Francis that I don't quite see the point for serializing an Exception, although I must admit that java.lang.Throwable is Serializable.
>>
>> But then I agree that we should consider making DBObject or ErrorObject serializeable which then would apply to the entire object hierarchy.
>> Regards
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>>
>> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> > from: Francis De Brabandere [mailto:francisdb@gmail.com]
>> > to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
>> > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
>> >
>> > Hi Eike,
>> >
>> > I see no reason for not making them Serializable.
>> >
>> > Rainer?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Francis
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error.
>> > > EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending
>> > RuntimeException)
>> > > but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are not
>> > > serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
>> > >
>> > > When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about
>> > making
>> > > some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since most
>> > or all
>> > > DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for them
>> > to
>> > > be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket which
>> > > both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example, I'd
>> > > like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Eike
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://www.somatik.be
>> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>>
>
> --
> email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
re: Serialization of EmpireException
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Eike,
great. There's no need to rush. We've all got our regular jobs and we also need to take our time.
We currently working on our 2.1. release and it would be great to have this issue resolved with that release too.
If you need our assistance please don't hesitate to ask.
But please make sure, that you work on the latest version from our repository
(svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/trunk)
Thanks,
Rainer
Eike Kettner wrote:
> from: Eike Kettner [mailto:news@eknet.org]
> to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
>
> Hi Rainer,
>
> yes, sure I'd like to do this change! I really like empire-db and I'm
> glad to contribute! I'll start on this and attach the patch to the jira
> issue. I'm not sure whether I have time the very next days, but I'll
> get
> to it ;-)
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Eike
>
>
> On [Sat, 22.01.2011 20:05], Rainer Döbele wrote:
> > Hi Eike,
> >
> > I have had a closer look and I fully agree with you.
> > We should make everyhing serializeable that is derived from
> ErrorObject, like this:
> >
> > public abstract class ErrorObject implements Serializable, ErrorInfo
> {
> > private static final long serialVersionUID = ....;
> > ...
> >
> > Also we would need to give every class its own serialVersionUID.
> >
> > Eike, since you came up with this, would you like to change that
> yourself and send us a patch?
> >
> > You have already donnated that Spring example to us in February 2010
> which was very helpful and you are certainly one of the regulars on
> this list. We appreciate your contributions very much and also your
> suggestions for improvement. If there is anything more we can do,
> please let us know.
> >
> > Regards
> > Rainer
> >
> >
> > Eike Kettner wrote:
> > > from: Eike Kettner [mailto:news@eknet.org]
> > > to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
> > >
> > > Hi Rainer and Francis,
> > >
> > > thanks for your quick replies and for giving this a chance.
> Serializing
> > > an exception is sure not something massive used, however sometimes
> it
> > > is
> > > quite a nice feature. For example, a JMSLogger sends log events to
> a
> > > broker, and there exceptions are serialized. Well, I see that this
> is
> > > not used often, and more or less a "special case" :). Still, I
> would
> > > consider a non-serializable exception a small "bug" - just because
> it's
> > > dictated by the java api.
> > >
> > > I had a quick look at the sources and as far as I can see, it
> should be
> > > ok to make "everything" serializable. There is always the
> > > "serializable-drawback" to consider: users can save objects on disk
> and
> > > later try to load them with a new version of empire-db, where class
> > > definitions have changed. Well, I think one can live with this, and
> it
> > > does not apply to many other use-cases of serialization (rmi,
> > > serialization used in wicket or messaging), because objects are
> > > serialized only for a short amount of time.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Eike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On [Sat, 22.01.2011 13:49], Rainer Döbele wrote:
> > > > Hi Eike,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Francis that I don't quite see the point for
> serializing
> > > an Exception, although I must admit that java.lang.Throwable is
> > > Serializable.
> > > >
> > > > But then I agree that we should consider making DBObject or
> > > ErrorObject serializeable which then would apply to the entire
> object
> > > hierarchy.
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Rainer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> > > > > from: Francis De Brabandere [mailto:francisdb@gmail.com]
> > > > > to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Eike,
> > > > >
> > > > > I see no reason for not making them Serializable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rainer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Francis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an
> error.
> > > > > > EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending
> > > > > RuntimeException)
> > > > > > but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought
> about
> > > > > making
> > > > > > some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable.
> Since
> > > most
> > > > > or all
> > > > > > DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay
> for
> > > them
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache
> Wicket
> > > which
> > > > > > both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For
> example,
> > > I'd
> > > > > > like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > > > Eike
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://www.somatik.be
> > > > > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
> >
>
> --
> email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
Re: Serialization of EmpireException
Posted by Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org>.
Hi Rainer,
yes, sure I'd like to do this change! I really like empire-db and I'm
glad to contribute! I'll start on this and attach the patch to the jira
issue. I'm not sure whether I have time the very next days, but I'll get
to it ;-)
Thanks and regards,
Eike
On [Sat, 22.01.2011 20:05], Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Hi Eike,
>
> I have had a closer look and I fully agree with you.
> We should make everyhing serializeable that is derived from ErrorObject, like this:
>
> public abstract class ErrorObject implements Serializable, ErrorInfo {
> private static final long serialVersionUID = ....;
> ...
>
> Also we would need to give every class its own serialVersionUID.
>
> Eike, since you came up with this, would you like to change that yourself and send us a patch?
>
> You have already donnated that Spring example to us in February 2010 which was very helpful and you are certainly one of the regulars on this list. We appreciate your contributions very much and also your suggestions for improvement. If there is anything more we can do, please let us know.
>
> Regards
> Rainer
>
>
> Eike Kettner wrote:
> > from: Eike Kettner [mailto:news@eknet.org]
> > to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
> >
> > Hi Rainer and Francis,
> >
> > thanks for your quick replies and for giving this a chance. Serializing
> > an exception is sure not something massive used, however sometimes it
> > is
> > quite a nice feature. For example, a JMSLogger sends log events to a
> > broker, and there exceptions are serialized. Well, I see that this is
> > not used often, and more or less a "special case" :). Still, I would
> > consider a non-serializable exception a small "bug" - just because it's
> > dictated by the java api.
> >
> > I had a quick look at the sources and as far as I can see, it should be
> > ok to make "everything" serializable. There is always the
> > "serializable-drawback" to consider: users can save objects on disk and
> > later try to load them with a new version of empire-db, where class
> > definitions have changed. Well, I think one can live with this, and it
> > does not apply to many other use-cases of serialization (rmi,
> > serialization used in wicket or messaging), because objects are
> > serialized only for a short amount of time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eike
> >
> >
> >
> > On [Sat, 22.01.2011 13:49], Rainer Döbele wrote:
> > > Hi Eike,
> > >
> > > I agree with Francis that I don't quite see the point for serializing
> > an Exception, although I must admit that java.lang.Throwable is
> > Serializable.
> > >
> > > But then I agree that we should consider making DBObject or
> > ErrorObject serializeable which then would apply to the entire object
> > hierarchy.
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Rainer
> > >
> > >
> > > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> > > > from: Francis De Brabandere [mailto:francisdb@gmail.com]
> > > > to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
> > > >
> > > > Hi Eike,
> > > >
> > > > I see no reason for not making them Serializable.
> > > >
> > > > Rainer?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Francis
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error.
> > > > > EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending
> > > > RuntimeException)
> > > > > but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are
> > not
> > > > > serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
> > > > >
> > > > > When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about
> > > > making
> > > > > some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since
> > most
> > > > or all
> > > > > DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for
> > them
> > > > to
> > > > > be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket
> > which
> > > > > both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example,
> > I'd
> > > > > like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > > Eike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.somatik.be
> > > > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
>
--
email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
re: Serialization of EmpireException
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Eike,
I have had a closer look and I fully agree with you.
We should make everyhing serializeable that is derived from ErrorObject, like this:
public abstract class ErrorObject implements Serializable, ErrorInfo {
private static final long serialVersionUID = ....;
...
Also we would need to give every class its own serialVersionUID.
Eike, since you came up with this, would you like to change that yourself and send us a patch?
You have already donnated that Spring example to us in February 2010 which was very helpful and you are certainly one of the regulars on this list. We appreciate your contributions very much and also your suggestions for improvement. If there is anything more we can do, please let us know.
Regards
Rainer
Eike Kettner wrote:
> from: Eike Kettner [mailto:news@eknet.org]
> to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
>
> Hi Rainer and Francis,
>
> thanks for your quick replies and for giving this a chance. Serializing
> an exception is sure not something massive used, however sometimes it
> is
> quite a nice feature. For example, a JMSLogger sends log events to a
> broker, and there exceptions are serialized. Well, I see that this is
> not used often, and more or less a "special case" :). Still, I would
> consider a non-serializable exception a small "bug" - just because it's
> dictated by the java api.
>
> I had a quick look at the sources and as far as I can see, it should be
> ok to make "everything" serializable. There is always the
> "serializable-drawback" to consider: users can save objects on disk and
> later try to load them with a new version of empire-db, where class
> definitions have changed. Well, I think one can live with this, and it
> does not apply to many other use-cases of serialization (rmi,
> serialization used in wicket or messaging), because objects are
> serialized only for a short amount of time.
>
> Regards,
> Eike
>
>
>
> On [Sat, 22.01.2011 13:49], Rainer Döbele wrote:
> > Hi Eike,
> >
> > I agree with Francis that I don't quite see the point for serializing
> an Exception, although I must admit that java.lang.Throwable is
> Serializable.
> >
> > But then I agree that we should consider making DBObject or
> ErrorObject serializeable which then would apply to the entire object
> hierarchy.
> > Regards
> >
> > Rainer
> >
> >
> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> > > from: Francis De Brabandere [mailto:francisdb@gmail.com]
> > > to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
> > >
> > > Hi Eike,
> > >
> > > I see no reason for not making them Serializable.
> > >
> > > Rainer?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Francis
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error.
> > > > EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending
> > > RuntimeException)
> > > > but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are
> not
> > > > serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
> > > >
> > > > When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about
> > > making
> > > > some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since
> most
> > > or all
> > > > DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for
> them
> > > to
> > > > be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket
> which
> > > > both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example,
> I'd
> > > > like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
> > > >
> > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > Eike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.somatik.be
> > > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >
>
> --
> email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
Re: Serialization of EmpireException
Posted by Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org>.
Hi Rainer and Francis,
thanks for your quick replies and for giving this a chance. Serializing
an exception is sure not something massive used, however sometimes it is
quite a nice feature. For example, a JMSLogger sends log events to a
broker, and there exceptions are serialized. Well, I see that this is
not used often, and more or less a "special case" :). Still, I would
consider a non-serializable exception a small "bug" - just because it's
dictated by the java api.
I had a quick look at the sources and as far as I can see, it should be
ok to make "everything" serializable. There is always the
"serializable-drawback" to consider: users can save objects on disk and
later try to load them with a new version of empire-db, where class
definitions have changed. Well, I think one can live with this, and it
does not apply to many other use-cases of serialization (rmi,
serialization used in wicket or messaging), because objects are
serialized only for a short amount of time.
Regards,
Eike
On [Sat, 22.01.2011 13:49], Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Hi Eike,
>
> I agree with Francis that I don't quite see the point for serializing an Exception, although I must admit that java.lang.Throwable is Serializable.
>
> But then I agree that we should consider making DBObject or ErrorObject serializeable which then would apply to the entire object hierarchy.
> Regards
>
> Rainer
>
>
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> > from: Francis De Brabandere [mailto:francisdb@gmail.com]
> > to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
> >
> > Hi Eike,
> >
> > I see no reason for not making them Serializable.
> >
> > Rainer?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Francis
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error.
> > > EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending
> > RuntimeException)
> > > but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are not
> > > serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
> > >
> > > When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about
> > making
> > > some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since most
> > or all
> > > DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for them
> > to
> > > be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket which
> > > both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example, I'd
> > > like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Eike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.somatik.be
> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
email: eike@eknet.org https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0
re: Serialization of EmpireException
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Eike,
I agree with Francis that I don't quite see the point for serializing an Exception, although I must admit that java.lang.Throwable is Serializable.
But then I agree that we should consider making DBObject or ErrorObject serializeable which then would apply to the entire object hierarchy.
Regards
Rainer
Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> from: Francis De Brabandere [mailto:francisdb@gmail.com]
> to: empire-db-user@incubator.apache.org
> re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException
>
> Hi Eike,
>
> I see no reason for not making them Serializable.
>
> Rainer?
>
> Cheers,
> Francis
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error.
> > EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending
> RuntimeException)
> > but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are not
> > serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
> >
> > When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about
> making
> > some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since most
> or all
> > DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for them
> to
> > be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket which
> > both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example, I'd
> > like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Eike
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: Serialization of EmpireException
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Eike,
I see no reason for not making them Serializable.
Rainer?
Cheers,
Francis
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <ne...@eknet.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was trying to serialize EmpireException but ran into an error.
> EmpireException is marked as Serializable (extending RuntimeException)
> but it holds references to ErrorObject and ErrorType which are not
> serializable. Hence a NotSerializableException is thrown.
>
> When asking this, I like to ask whether there is a thought about making
> some model objects like DBRowset DBTable etc serializable. Since most or all
> DBXyz objects hold model information only it should be okay for them to
> be serializable, imho? I use messaging and often Apache Wicket which
> both use serialization, that's why I'm asking this. (For example, I'd
> like to pass around where and order-by expressions).
>
> Kind Regards,
> Eike
>
>
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.