On 24/01/2020 13:34, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:14 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 18:10, Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 23/01/2020 13:55, sebb wrote:
I think we don't want temporary serialisation fixes to encourage the
use of serialisation.
So I suggest that the Release Notes and Javadoc should point out that
although serialisation is possible, it is not fully supported, and
that there are plans to drop all serialisation support.
The javadoc for the new field that is not serialized have been
documented. This current code is able to deserialize a record created
using version 1.0 and 1.6. I did not test the in between releases.
Serialisation broke in 1.7.
Should a note be added to the header for CSVRecord stating that the
class is serialization compatible with version 1.0 - 1.6. Fields added
after version 1.6 are not serialized and the intension is to remove
serialisation support in version 2.0.
WDYT?
LGTM (apart from some spelling issues!)
However, I think it's worth noting in the Release Notes as well.
I'm OK with what Sebb said.
Gary
OK. I'll update the description in the changes.xml for this release
(which IIUC become the release notes) and javadoc the CSVRecord in the
class header.
Alex
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
