Bryan Thompson wrote:
it's not so much the overhead, its the extra dependency. Even if you
don't use it you are forced to include it, because Serialiser extends
it. So if we are to use it, it needs to be "plugged" in, so that it's
Well, easy come, easy go - but
you might want to see who's using it before you drop it out.
There is zero overhead when
extser is not enabled.
The LGPL is a wierd issue, basically Apache takes a stand against LGPL
and will not allow any of it's projects to depend on an LGPL
dependency. This would force Apache DS to have to fork JDBM to maintain
a version without that LGPL dependency. It's not that they think that
LGPL is causing any wierd violation, they just don't like some of the
ambiguity, and thus fall on the side of caution.
Cees de Groot wrote:
Great, I'l update and look over it. For me I just want JDBM to write my
byte, I don't want it to go anywhere near a serialistion method call,
I'm currently just trying to find out if that is possible.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Cees de Groot <email@example.com> wrote:
I grabbed the extensible serializer source code and added it to the
source tree - the original project doesn't seem to exist anymore so I
thought this was the quickest way to get rid of a binary-only
On second thought, I agree it's not good to have JDBM depend on a
single serializer. So I'm removing the dependency (rolling back to the
pre-extser tag in CVS and checking what happened after that)