Re: Type-safe Prevayler, using generics

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Klaus Wuestefeld <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Drop Skaringa rather than having multiple factories.
> >
> > Not sure I agree about that.
>
> Why not? Anyone use Skaringa? Is the value of having that option there
> more important than simplicity, elegance, ease of learning and
> avoiding these recurring "what about skaringa?" discussions?


I lean toward dropping Skaringa. Carrying the dependency is an unnecessary
cost for Prevayler, whereas it's trivial for users to resurrect it if they
really want it.

My opinion was different, however, back when I was actively maintaining
Prevayler, because Skaringa's quirks provided a good example to check the
Serializer contract against. At some point I remember a change went into
core Prevayler code that conflicted unnecessarily with how Skaringa wanted
to work. Making sure the architecture works with Skaringa as well as
XStream and Java serialization provides 3 use cases as evidence that any
other serialization strategies people might want to use are likely to work
as well.

Cheers,
Justin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1

_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe go to the end of this page: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prevayler-discussion
_______________________________________________
"Databases in Memoriam" -- http://www.prevayler.org