> -----Original Message----- > From: Mikhail Fursov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 7/27/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What effect would there be if we were communicating (via RMI) with an > > implementation of a remote VM that isn't harmony? I.e.,if we have a > > String "asdfasdfasdf" which hashes to (say) 8 on a Harmony VM, and a > > remote implementation uses a hash of 12 for the same value, would that > > cause any problems in an RMI layer? Do we care about such a scenario? > > > > I do not think this is a problem. > We can't be serialization-compatible with RI because our classes have a > different set of private fields and only interfaces are the same. >
What class are you referring to? The hash value of a String isn't written during serialization [1]; the String serialization is actually a somewhat special form. In most other classes that are serializable though, the hash value generally isn't part of the serialized form. The serialized form is part of the public contract and we strive to meet all parts of the public contract, so if you know of specific cases, please log some issues about them. There are a few exceptional cases, like TimeZone, that may be incompatible, but those are not the norm. -Nathan [1] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/serialized-form.html#java.lang.Strin g --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
