Bryan Thompson wrote:
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.
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 optional.

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.
 
-b


From: jdbm-general-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:jdbm-general-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:58 AM
To: Cees de Groot
Cc: jdbm-general@lists.sourceforge.net; cowtowncoder@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Jdbm-general] extensible serializer

Cees de Groot wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Cees de Groot <cdegroot@gmail.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
dependency.
    
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 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)