From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:48:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [JGIT PATCH] 1/2 : (reworked) Externalizable/Serializable Items
Message-ID: <20090218214859.GN22848@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <200902182159.51027.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>

Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> wrote:
> Shawn wrote:
> > > +            os.writeUTF(KEY_FETCH);
> > > +            os.writeUTF(refspec.toString());
> > > +        }
> > > +
> > > +        for (RefSpec refspec : push) {
> > > +        	os.writeUTF(KEY_PUSH);
> > > +            os.writeUTF(refspec.toString());
> > > +        }
> > 
> > Should we maybe allow RefSpec to serialize itself with
> > os.writeObject() rather than using writeUTF() directly?
> 
> Doesn't the style above make it easy to define and document
> a format that is easy for non-java programs to write and read,
> while writeObject introduces java-centric stuff (depending on
> the full class name etc).

Non-Java reading a Java serialization stream?  Seriously?

-- 
Shawn.