Re: [PATCH JGIT] Minor : Make ObjectId, RemoteConfig Serializable

From: Nigel Magnay <nigel.magnay@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 8, 2009, 13:26 UTC
Message-ID: <320075ff0902080526g2bee8188g395397b06a0c80ee@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200902080313.21785.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>

Show 9 quoted lines

> A problem (big problem) with serialization is that it often leads to
> fragile interfaces. One might want to have precise control over
> the serialization so a change in the implementation doesn't affect
> compatibility. Serializing AnyObjectId should not depend on the
> implementation de jour. Second, how do we handle subclasses?
>
> But maybe leaving it this way would be our way of saying that
> the interface may break at any time, promise.
>

Well, we can of course implement writeObject / readObject (or do so if/when compatibility breaks, and it's cared about)

That's how I tend to view it anyway (may break at any time) - you can't just update a jar library to a significantly new version and expect it all to stay compatible. Also for half my use, it's not for persistence, it's for transferring over the wire to a slave process.

Thinking a bit more clearly, I probably don't need AnyObjectId, just ObjectId - but I've also missed RefSpec and URIish as they're used in RemoteConfig..