This week's book giveaway is in the Agile and Other Processes forum. We're giving away four copies of Real-World Software Development: A Project-Driven Guide to Fundamentals in Java and have Dr. Raoul-Gabriel Urma & Richard Warburton on-line! See this thread for details.
Wheels is a object which cannot be serialized. Cars can be serialized. Wheels is not instantiated yet inside Cars so Cars object does not have Wheels object. Thus Cars object can be serialized and one object gets serialized. If Wheels object would have been instantiated then the Cars object would have a wheels object inside it and in that case that object cannot be serialized. It would throw NotSerializable exception then.
Its not easy to be a compiler [ April 27, 2007: Message edited by: megha joshi ]
posted 12 years ago
should have guessed it, if it was as simple as D, you wouldn't have posted it in the first place
posted 12 years ago
Yeah, You took the question in right way!
Until, Wheels is instantiated, no problem to serialize the Cars object, which HAS-A Wheels.
Its not easy to be a compiler.
But I am sure It not easy to think like a programmer, for the compiler.
Just one small point. I take it that this question is not one of those from Sun's Practive Exam that you have agreed to not to disclose? That is, it is not from Sun's online US$ 75 test? [ April 28, 2007: Message edited by: Barry Gaunt ]
I do agree with you all, but only when a new instance of the Wheels is created. In this question option "B" is correct. Having only a reference of the class that is not Serializable is no more sin that could hinder the proper Serialization of the containing class object.
Megha described the rest part very well.
Barry, the question I picked from says "Courtesy to sun practice exam"! What to do, should I remove this question? [ April 30, 2007: Message edited by: Chandra Bhatt ]
Oh, sure, you could do that. Or you could eat some pie. While reading this tiny ad: