Matrix should be made Serializable

[fommil]

Original author: sdvil...@gmail.com (March 11, 2009 15:48:57)

As Vector already is.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/matrix-toolkits-java/issues/detail?id=11

[fommil]

From Sam.Hall...@gmail.com on March 11, 2009 18:39:54
The decision to make Vector Serializable was an API mistake... we will not be making Matrix Serializable as it
would tie down the binary representation of all implementations. However, if you need to transport Matrix
instances across a network (or persist them), I recommend the MatrixIO file format which MTJ supports.

[fommil]

From sdvil...@gmail.com on March 11, 2009 21:55:53

Then for consistency Vector should be made non-serializable, before someone starts to
store vectors in an unsupported serialized form. I know of some open source project
that already use Vector serialization. I'm aware of the risks and long-term costs
associated with making such top level interface serializable, but it was worth trying
as probably it wouldn't have been such a strong commitment for the library.

My point of view is shaped by my needs as a library-on-top-of-library developer. My
codebase heavily relies on serialization as a cheap way of storing and copying
complex objects. Third party classes that are not directly suitable to be components
of other serializable classes are a real pain. The old story.

I guess this decision is the right one. Keep the good work.

[fommil]

From Sam.Hall...@gmail.com on March 11, 2009 21:58:32
Unfortunately that move would break backwards compatibility... MTJ has been used for many years by many
people. For me, that means we now have a commitment to honour the Serializable form of Vector
implementations (and others in the library). sigh