On Jan 5, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/01/2015 14:49, Lance Andersen wrote: >> Hi Alan, >> >> I think this looks fine and of course I am OK with where you moved >> javax.transaction.xa >> >> >> I am not sure we need to have an MR for the SerialVersionUID given the >> serialization spec defines how the default is calculated so just adding the >> value does not change the behavior. I know it now shows up in the >> serialized form but given the signature tests do not report whether the >> field is or is not there (just went through this exercise with JMS as they >> did not specify the SUID and updated JMSException which caused failures on >> WLS.), I would like to think Paul can handle this as part of his next MR and >> we can make the change ahead of time. I will follow up with Bill and Paul >> as Bill and I had talked about addressing default SUID issues in Java EE. >> >> > Thanks Lance. My hesitation with adding the SUID is that it would mean that > the Java SE subset of javax.transaction would temporarily be ahead of the JTA > / EE specification. However if this is something that can be fixed in a JTA > update in the JDK 9 timeframe then I think it should be okay. > Discussion is started and I am talking with all of the Java EE architects on Jan 26 at the arch meeting. So this should be doable. Best, Lance > -Alan. > Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 [email protected]
