Hello. > >> > >> 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.
I am _not_ going to work on that. [Plenty of arguments given previously saying exactly that: it must be done seriously. It is not so in CM. And (IMHO) it is not necessary for CM to support "Serializable" (also argued previously).] > Just adding "implements Serializable" is a bad idea. Agreed. So? [I guess I'm not going to do anything myself on this issue.] Regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
