On 8 May 2012 10:26, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 07/05/2012 22:16, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : >> Hi. > > Hi Gilles, > >> >> There is another complaint about some class not being "Serializable": >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-787 >> >> I don't want to argue all over again. >> >> We should probably add a section in the user guide stating the policy with >> regards to this issue. >> The problem is that I don't know what the policy is. >> >> Either we agree that supporting Serializable is none of our business (my >> viewpoint), and I can add that section; or we continue to be sloppy on this >> issue and just blindly write "implements Serializable" whenever we get such >> a complaint (stating in the Javadoc that the serializable form is not to be >> relied on, in the sense that any two versions of CM can produce forms that >> are not compatible). > > I am in favor of this second option: add Serializable were needed upon > request.
+1 > In this case, the request seems fair as the class is mainly a > simple container for two values. But what ever the size/complexity, adding Serializable needs to be done carefully, and documented as necessary using @serial, @serialField, @serialData tags. Just adding "implements Serializable" is a bad idea. > What do other people think ? > > Luc > >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Gilles >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
