Dear all, I'm extremely unfamiliar with serialization and its many pitfalls, and I would need advice from you wise guys ;-) !!! Here is the thing. I'm currently working on MATH-761, where for the sake of "efficiency" (which remains to be asserted [1]), I did some bad choice on the structure of internal data. I'm willing to clean this up. The way I see it at the moment, the nested class SymmLQ.State will probably (probably) go, as it conveys a false sense of security through encapsulation (not sure I'm very clear, there. In other words: the code is difficult to read).
This class is private, so the public API would not be broken. However, there is another nested class, namely SymmLQ.SymmLQEvent which implements Serializable, and currently holds a reference to an instance of State. So, I guess that if State disappears in 3.1, events serialized with 3.0 could not be retrieved with CM v 3.1 (and vice-versa). Would this be considered as a break of the API? Sorry if this is a silly question, and thanks in advance for your help! Best regards, Sébastien [1] Thinking about it a few months later, I now realize that my quest for efficiency was actually completely flawed: I wanted to avoid the creation of one small object at each iteration, while in the course of this iteration, a matrix-vector product occurs, with presumably a very (very) large matrix (since that's what iterative solvers do). So it is very likely that the iterations are dominated by the product anyway, unless the matrix is small, in which case a direct solver should be preferred. Bad, bad, bad... I promise I won't do that again. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
