You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Matej Knopp <ma...@knopp.sk> on 2006/11/22 13:33:46 UTC
Wicket 2 - Response implements Serializable?!
Hi,
I just update W2 and it doesn't compile, as the classes extended from
Response don't declare serial version uid. So it seem that Eelco made
response serializable. Johan and I think that it's a bad idea to have
Response implements serializable. I personally have found numerous bugs
just because response failed to serialize. (missing detachs, etc.)
I think if anyone need to Serialize response (String response), he
should make it's own derivate and make it implement Serializable.
So this is a vote. Should we remove Serializable from Response?
Me: +1
-Matej
Re: Wicket 2 - Response implements Serializable?!
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 11/22/06, Matej Knopp <ma...@knopp.sk> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just update W2 and it doesn't compile, as the classes extended from
> Response don't declare serial version uid. So it seem that Eelco made
> response serializable. Johan and I think that it's a bad idea to have
> Response implements serializable. I personally have found numerous bugs
> just because response failed to serialize. (missing detachs, etc.)
>
> I think if anyone need to Serialize response (String response), he
> should make it's own derivate and make it implement Serializable.
>
> So this is a vote. Should we remove Serializable from Response?
>
> Me: +1
>
> -Matej
>
Re: Wicket 2 - Response implements Serializable?!
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
Sigh... seems I had some outgoing changes still too. Programming in
the evenings != a good idea.
Eelco
On 11/22/06, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, sorry about that. Actually I made that change (at least I
> thought) so that only StringResponse implemented it.
>
> Anyway, it seems the response ends up in the session somehow, so we
> have something to fix there. I got exceptions all over the place when
> I tried to work on my project yesterday.
>
> Eelco
>
>
> >
> > I think if anyone need to Serialize response (String response), he
> > should make it's own derivate and make it implement Serializable.
> >
> > So this is a vote. Should we remove Serializable from Response?
> >
> > Me: +1
> >
> > -Matej
> >
>
Re: Wicket 2 - Response implements Serializable?!
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, sorry about that. Actually I made that change (at least I
thought) so that only StringResponse implemented it.
Anyway, it seems the response ends up in the session somehow, so we
have something to fix there. I got exceptions all over the place when
I tried to work on my project yesterday.
Eelco
>
> I think if anyone need to Serialize response (String response), he
> should make it's own derivate and make it implement Serializable.
>
> So this is a vote. Should we remove Serializable from Response?
>
> Me: +1
>
> -Matej
>
Re: Re: Re: Wicket 2 - Response implements Serializable?!
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
And 1.x branch doesn't compile because of it.
Martijn
On 11/22/06, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> As a side note, it is also in the 1.x branch
>
> Martijn
>
> On 11/22/06, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yes +1
> >
> > it doesn't make any sense to me that a response is serialize (a response is
> > more or less a outputstream....)
> >
> > Everytime we did find a problem now it was a bug that a response object was
> > kept around.
> > So let it be not serializeable. A special subclass (like string response
> > ok.. that could be but i am even not pro that
> > just store the string!)
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/22/06, Matej Knopp <ma...@knopp.sk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I just update W2 and it doesn't compile, as the classes extended from
> > > Response don't declare serial version uid. So it seem that Eelco made
> > > response serializable. Johan and I think that it's a bad idea to have
> > > Response implements serializable. I personally have found numerous bugs
> > > just because response failed to serialize. (missing detachs, etc.)
> > >
> > > I think if anyone need to Serialize response (String response), he
> > > should make it's own derivate and make it implement Serializable.
> > >
> > > So this is a vote. Should we remove Serializable from Response?
> > >
> > > Me: +1
> > >
> > > -Matej
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
> for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
> at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
> the World!</a>
>
--
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
the World!</a>
Re: Re: Wicket 2 - Response implements Serializable?!
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1
As a side note, it is also in the 1.x branch
Martijn
On 11/22/06, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes +1
>
> it doesn't make any sense to me that a response is serialize (a response is
> more or less a outputstream....)
>
> Everytime we did find a problem now it was a bug that a response object was
> kept around.
> So let it be not serializeable. A special subclass (like string response
> ok.. that could be but i am even not pro that
> just store the string!)
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On 11/22/06, Matej Knopp <ma...@knopp.sk> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just update W2 and it doesn't compile, as the classes extended from
> > Response don't declare serial version uid. So it seem that Eelco made
> > response serializable. Johan and I think that it's a bad idea to have
> > Response implements serializable. I personally have found numerous bugs
> > just because response failed to serialize. (missing detachs, etc.)
> >
> > I think if anyone need to Serialize response (String response), he
> > should make it's own derivate and make it implement Serializable.
> >
> > So this is a vote. Should we remove Serializable from Response?
> >
> > Me: +1
> >
> > -Matej
> >
>
>
--
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
the World!</a>
Re: Wicket 2 - Response implements Serializable?!
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
yes +1
it doesn't make any sense to me that a response is serialize (a response is
more or less a outputstream....)
Everytime we did find a problem now it was a bug that a response object was
kept around.
So let it be not serializeable. A special subclass (like string response
ok.. that could be but i am even not pro that
just store the string!)
johan
On 11/22/06, Matej Knopp <ma...@knopp.sk> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just update W2 and it doesn't compile, as the classes extended from
> Response don't declare serial version uid. So it seem that Eelco made
> response serializable. Johan and I think that it's a bad idea to have
> Response implements serializable. I personally have found numerous bugs
> just because response failed to serialize. (missing detachs, etc.)
>
> I think if anyone need to Serialize response (String response), he
> should make it's own derivate and make it implement Serializable.
>
> So this is a vote. Should we remove Serializable from Response?
>
> Me: +1
>
> -Matej
>