From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Fri Jan 21 15:32:30 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 7159 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2011 15:32:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jan 2011 15:32:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 32522 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jan 2011 15:32:30 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 32459 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jan 2011 15:32:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 32447 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jan 2011 15:32:27 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:32:27 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO eknet.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:32:19 +0000 Received: from shang (unknown [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eknet.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86EB59D4375 for <thomasstokes@example.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:31:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:31:55 +0100 From: Eike Kettner <thomasstokes@example.com> To: thomasstokes@example.com Subject: Serialization of EmpireException Message-ID: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux squeeze/sid (Kernel 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Fri Jan 21 20:17:55 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 3701 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2011 20:17:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jan 2011 20:17:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 77817 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jan 2011 20:17:54 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 77758 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jan 2011 20:17:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 77750 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jan 2011 20:17:53 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:17:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of thomasstokes@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-pv0-f175.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:17:49 +0000 Received: by pvd12 with SMTP id 12so398445pvd.6 for <thomasstokes@example.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:17:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=/vDH66e981mn6DLcDfm0PpEGoUjU4s+m+4DoWPSktfQ=; b=paB3uhYTxDB4a78gxpK//c+JAHvlJcxL0XFMQpxReJKJsK1O/t5jysxXSTdIGhhSvR hAUEYueFzHVQnA+LkNhJ3Y2fy3eegATbKZaz42RuyEaqeYT3AXFwbbsuRJFHlthKz4sH uu9nNPSElEivPKDHGwH380lMtEjnB+WO4W5bo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=p5tTiaggB7MPV4NrnLuPil6gU2EWv2cvNlk75r/16X06R0Zthqrp/C7Ugn4Czl65yi QhCZ2MH/zD3KSVLGcOp7VKgbMiNgawGq7+FwqJI5SydXUGTov4ZGBszdE2nh41+OdXoA UllfVS0emboJxIZlVGAFpDApzA9L6IpP9iGNA= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id a16mr1127179wfe.286.1295641046859; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:17:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:17:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> References: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> From: Francis De Brabandere <thomasstokes@example.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:17:06 +0100 Message-ID: <thomasstokes@example.com> Subject: Re: Serialization of EmpireException To: thomasstokes@example.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 <thomasstokes@example.com> 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. From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Sat Jan 22 12:52:26 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 44338 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2011 12:52:25 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2011 12:52:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 78774 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 12:52:25 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 78716 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 12:52:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 78706 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2011 12:52:22 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:52:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail.esteam.de) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:52:16 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: re: Serialization of EmpireException MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 13:49:51 +0100 Message-ID: <thomasstokes@example.com> In-Reply-To: <thomasstokes@example.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: re: Serialization of EmpireException thread-index: Acu5qEq1IFzj9tifR7i6oozsembq2AAhphSQ References: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> <thomasstokes@example.com> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rainer_D=F6bele?= <thomasstokes@example.com> To: <thomasstokes@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > to: thomasstokes@example.com > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException >=20 > Hi Eike, >=20 > I see no reason for not making them Serializable. >=20 > Rainer? >=20 > Cheers, > Francis >=20 > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eike Kettner <thomasstokes@example.com> 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 > > > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > http://www.somatik.be > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Sat Jan 22 18:22:47 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 97798 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2011 18:22:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2011 18:22:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 10583 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 18:22:47 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 10514 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 18:22:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 10501 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2011 18:22:45 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:22:45 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO eknet.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:22:37 +0000 Received: from nyx (153-142.198-178.cust.bluewin.ch [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eknet.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 196189D4375 for <thomasstokes@example.com>; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:22:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:26:44 +0100 From: Eike Kettner <thomasstokes@example.com> To: thomasstokes@example.com Subject: Re: Serialization of EmpireException Message-ID: <20110122182643.GA6016@nyx> References: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> <thomasstokes@example.com> <thomasstokes@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <thomasstokes@example.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux squeeze/sid (Kernel 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.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:thomasstokes@example.com] > > to: thomasstokes@example.com > > 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 <thomasstokes@example.com> 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: thomasstokes@example.com https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Sat Jan 22 18:35:24 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 1263 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2011 18:35:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2011 18:35:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 22767 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 18:35:24 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 22678 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 18:35:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 22661 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2011 18:35:23 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:35:23 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of thomasstokes@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-pv0-f175.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:35:18 +0000 Received: by pvd12 with SMTP id 12so537382pvd.6 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:34:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=NahAHY7puKR9+UtxSRgXJM5g2MAbEal/p/ES3paohRI=; b=rwZznuOXTbxskrZ/5JZGmvTVOEzGoitbP9Gs6g2KwwriLiWvGHgp2qqi6dX6dSK61Z Nv+3NYnQX9zVbZmZbHRtPdf23BZ4z/iCNud0A74yKwTki0/9/mECNFvSBbU5m/hcnUNb Q4MsPdtZRWfcDedxgFFDusuNaJvxD9SX/Bhqc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=r0kzTsl+vVs9DqrACPis0I77dDmJz2ak/gXEVqDe0HAQmqY59v/ZSCzP9iBbXVZ9dd KAcAFtdHHqpPeYNZyhBPB6aO5MzPBVR8yDfCIdyL70fGyjG+qjrjiabCFCg1AkVPJzqF NtN56M/CKXXaO8rxi8FtMgnsK5lE9hudT6COs= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id f8mr144707wfj.172.1295721296216; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:34:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:34:36 -0800 (PST) From: Francis De Brabandere <thomasstokes@example.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:34:36 +0100 Message-ID: <thomasstokes@example.com> Subject: Future of empire-db To: thomasstokes@example.com, thomasstokes@example.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello there. As empire-db is struggling a bit to grow a community, and we need a bigger community to graduate, we want to involve our users in the decision on where to go with the project. Below you'll find some questions and we would be delighted to hear your comments! * Where do you use empire-db? or what keeps you from using empire-db? * If you evaluated empire-db but switched to something else we would like to know what you are using. * How do you feel about the project? * Is there anything we could do better? * What should we put more effort into? * Would you be interested in contributing. For example helping with documentation, examples, blog posts, or adding functionality. Thanks, The empire-db team. -- our incubator report as reference below -- http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2011 Empire-db Apache Empire-db is a relational database abstraction layer that allows developers to take a more SQL-centric approach in application development than traditional ORM frameworks. Its focus is to allow highly efficient database operations in combination with a maximum of compile-time-safety and DBMS independence. Project development since the last report Last December we have finished and published release 2.0.7 that features some minor improvements and bug fixes. Currently we are working on release 2.1.0 with more significant improvements. Issues to address in the move towards graduation and community development After now being 2 and a half years in the incubator we have managed to successfully implement and establish the Apache development and release cycle, we have published several releases and we have received good feedback from users who are subscribed to the dev and user lists. However during all this time, we have still not managed to get ourselves known to a wider audience and to get a significant amount of public attention, most certainly due to the fact that have not managed to work on publicity as much as on code. Also our community currently consists of only 3 active committers that are regularly contributing to the project. For this reason questions about the future of the project and whether we will ever be able to graduate have been raised. While the remaining active committers are determined to continue their project commitment and to work towards graduation it is still unclear by which measures new committers can be won to join the project. Hence, for the coming months answering this question and establishing the corresponding measures should be our focus. One way of answering this question could be to move this discussion to the dev list in order to find out how our subscribers feel about the status of the project. Also it might make sense to combine the user and dev lists in order to prevent subscribers from missing information and getting them more involved in the project. -- http://www.somatik.be Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Sat Jan 22 18:37:33 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 1472 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2011 18:37:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2011 18:37:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 23873 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 18:37:33 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 23830 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 18:37:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 23822 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2011 18:37:33 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:37:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of thomasstokes@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-pw0-f47.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:37:28 +0000 Received: by pwi8 with SMTP id 8so544247pwi.6 for <thomasstokes@example.com>; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:37:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=R7MR2uz5DrqoR6YHJYjcZVo98Z7zJ6jHqXWsQlRYX5Q=; b=BXn7xTiH688UZeOoRLFBq9DM/3edA9Qp4gT3G71Ncu1h/gAYW1okz0a5ZRzqngAMh8 rCS+GyGj764TShjhroMKkjSNyb484p1u+ttWA0AP+HS1SWhtBGRgmZqfTinzhyqIr+iA kslQpRaq1yCeIG+HlzdQ0frl7NPizUlG85Yac= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=OGJr+hDQU5Bg0p4wI4gtMSx/i+h39NC9ee+DmbunWWwt+8UGx+O3VOBXqwvkIBM8z9 Z8yspRz5PT26Cv5OI5STs7j3q4Hl0/yBnYknsUvfkp3UfRurZy7rf6S70prGmoPlu35L ezRNurxOQr3JJf2tO/LoG2mVQXC7ckO+NVrog= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id f8mr145926wfj.172.1295721427615; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:37:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:36:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110122182643.GA6016@nyx> References: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> <thomasstokes@example.com> <thomasstokes@example.com> <20110122182643.GA6016@nyx> From: Francis De Brabandere <thomasstokes@example.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:36:47 +0100 Message-ID: <thomasstokes@example.com> Subject: Re: Serialization of EmpireException To: thomasstokes@example.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 <thomasstokes@example.com> 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 D=F6bele 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:thomasstokes@example.com] >> > to: thomasstokes@example.com >> > 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 <thomasstokes@example.com> 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 mos= t >> > 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: thomasstokes@example.com =A0 https://www.eknet.org =A0pgp: 481161A0 > --=20 http://www.somatik.be Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Sat Jan 22 19:08:08 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 71929 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2011 19:08:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2011 19:08:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 40059 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 19:08:08 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 40034 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 19:08:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 40026 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2011 19:08:07 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:08:07 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail.esteam.de) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:08:03 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: re: Serialization of EmpireException MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:05:36 +0100 Message-ID: <thomasstokes@example.com> In-Reply-To: <20110122182643.GA6016@nyx> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: re: Serialization of EmpireException thread-index: Acu6YV+H9zo566xtQxKmE40+sIgskgAA/9zQ References: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> <thomasstokes@example.com> <thomasstokes@example.com> <20110122182643.GA6016@nyx> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rainer_D=F6bele?= <thomasstokes@example.com> To: <thomasstokes@example.com> 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 =3D ....; ... 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > to: thomasstokes@example.com > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException >=20 > Hi Rainer and Francis, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Regards, > Eike >=20 >=20 >=20 > On [Sat, 22.01.2011 13:49], Rainer D=F6bele 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > > > to: thomasstokes@example.com > > > 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 <thomasstokes@example.com> > 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. > > >=20 > -- > email: thomasstokes@example.com https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Sat Jan 22 22:11:12 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 47626 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2011 22:11:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2011 22:11:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 71525 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 22:11:12 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 71456 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 22:11:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 71447 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2011 22:11:11 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:11:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO eknet.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:11:04 +0000 Received: from nyx (153-142.198-178.cust.bluewin.ch [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eknet.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C1D39D4375 for <thomasstokes@example.com>; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:10:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:15:14 +0100 From: Eike Kettner <thomasstokes@example.com> To: thomasstokes@example.com Subject: Re: Serialization of EmpireException Message-ID: <20110122221514.GB6016@nyx> References: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> <thomasstokes@example.com> <thomasstokes@example.com> <20110122182643.GA6016@nyx> <thomasstokes@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <thomasstokes@example.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux squeeze/sid (Kernel 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.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 <thomasstokes@example.com> 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > >> > to: thomasstokes@example.com > >> > 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 <thomasstokes@example.com> 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: thomasstokes@example.com https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 > > > > > > -- > http://www.somatik.be > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > -- email: thomasstokes@example.com https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Sat Jan 22 22:53:12 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 58443 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2011 22:53:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2011 22:53:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 91643 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 22:53:12 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 91602 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 22:53:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 91594 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2011 22:53:11 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:53:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO eknet.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:53:06 +0000 Received: from nyx (153-142.198-178.cust.bluewin.ch [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eknet.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E41229D4375 for <thomasstokes@example.com>; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:52:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:57:12 +0100 From: Eike Kettner <thomasstokes@example.com> To: thomasstokes@example.com Subject: Re: Serialization of EmpireException Message-ID: <20110122225712.GA4865@nyx> References: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> <thomasstokes@example.com> <thomasstokes@example.com> <20110122182643.GA6016@nyx> <thomasstokes@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <thomasstokes@example.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux squeeze/sid (Kernel 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem) X-Message-Flag: Bitte senden Sie mir keine HTML Mails. Danke! Please do not send HTML mails. Thanks! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > > to: thomasstokes@example.com > > 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > > > > to: thomasstokes@example.com > > > > 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 <thomasstokes@example.com> > > 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: thomasstokes@example.com https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 > -- email: thomasstokes@example.com https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Sat Jan 22 23:03:15 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 60984 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2011 23:03:15 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2011 23:03:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 99768 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 23:03:15 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 99713 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2011 23:03:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 99705 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2011 23:03:14 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:03:14 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail.esteam.de) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:03:10 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: re: Serialization of EmpireException MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:00:43 +0100 Message-ID: <thomasstokes@example.com> In-Reply-To: <20110122225712.GA4865@nyx> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: re: Serialization of EmpireException thread-index: Acu6hyZ+d1eQP0BXRXGvCkUwW5gIfwAADdEA References: <20110121153155.GE2656@shang> <thomasstokes@example.com> <thomasstokes@example.com> <20110122182643.GA6016@nyx> <thomasstokes@example.com> <20110122225712.GA4865@nyx> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rainer_D=F6bele?= <thomasstokes@example.com> To: <thomasstokes@example.com> 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > to: thomasstokes@example.com > re: Re: Serialization of EmpireException >=20 > Hi Rainer, >=20 > 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 ;-) >=20 > Thanks and regards, > Eike >=20 >=20 > On [Sat, 22.01.2011 20:05], Rainer D=F6bele 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 =3D ....; > > ... > > > > 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > > > to: thomasstokes@example.com > > > 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 D=F6bele 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:thomasstokes@example.com] > > > > > to: thomasstokes@example.com > > > > > 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 <thomasstokes@example.com> > > > 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: thomasstokes@example.com https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 > > >=20 > -- > email: thomasstokes@example.com https://www.eknet.org pgp: 481161A0 From empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com Mon Jan 24 08:44:02 2011 Return-Path: <empire-db-user-return-thomasstokes@example.com> Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 22984 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2011 08:44:02 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Jan 2011 08:44:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 18515 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jan 2011 08:44:02 -0000 Delivered-To: thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 18450 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jan 2011 08:44:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact thomasstokes@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:thomasstokes@example.com> List-Id: <empire-db-user.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: thomasstokes@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list thomasstokes@example.com Received: (qmail 18442 invoked by uid 99); 24 Jan 2011 08:43:59 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:43:59 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of thomasstokes@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO tamar.safe-mail.net) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:43:52 +0000 Received: by tamar.safe-mail.net with Safe-mail (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from <thomasstokes@example.com>) id 1PhI15-0005ZC-3S for thomasstokes@example.com; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:43:15 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=N1-0105; d=Safe-mail.net; b=BGaxsttacZbRbNjcw/4VVb4TYSmT7LRGrQ21k80b2nFwgoUSeUwIGb2EXHi/Z+7h RxJL9wO5OF0N6RTYBUHpimCnP0ydI95QnEtwG9H8JiDolZcVBLkNtoIcXDbBvXSJ NH/KMVrBKozs3LgntciEgUzYcMXZ8FnaXurcWo7wWfY=; Received: from pc ([83.161.120.155]) by Safe-mail.net with https Subject: Re: Future of empire-db Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:43:14 -0500 From: thomasstokes@example.com To: thomasstokes@example.com X-SMType: Regular X-SMRef: N1B-Eu4s9P9hcr Message-Id: <thomasstokes@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding:
{'source': 'Apache Software Foundation Public Mail Archives'}