IsSerializable vs Serializable

[codespelunker]

Hello,

Has any thought been given to changing the Action interface to implement java.io.Serializable instead of GWT's IsSerializable.  For quite a few versions now, they are treated the same.  Our Action classes are in a shared library that get used by both client code (compiled to JS) and our server code (compiled Java).  This requires our server code to include the gwt-dev JAR on the classpath when it really shouldn't need it.

Is there a reason to stick with IsSerializable, or would you accept a patch that changed it?

Ryan

[Robert Munteanu]

Hi Ryan,

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM, codespelunker <codesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Has any thought been given to changing the Action interface to implement
> java.io.Serializable instead of GWT's IsSerializable.

We actually changes from Serializable to IsSerializable some time ago, see [1]

> For quite a few
> versions now, they are treated the same. Our Action classes are in a shared
> library that get used by both client code (compiled to JS) and our server
> code (compiled Java). This requires our server code to include the gwt-dev
> JAR on the classpath when it really shouldn't need it.

I'm a bit rusty here, but don't you need to include just gwt-servlet?

Robert

>
> Is there a reason to stick with IsSerializable, or would you accept a patch
> that changed it?
>
> Ryan

[1]: http://code.google.com/p/gwt-dispatch/source/detail?r=fca5ede5eec6e946de80d4b3c0e7d22e1ffdc72f

--
Sent from my (old) computer

[codespelunker]

Robert,

About gwt-servlet, you are correct, that should work better.  Thanks for that tip.

Ryan