Hi Sergey and Sergey ;),
that's totally correct! Serialization really is a beast sometimes, you
have to take care that instances that have been serialized even with
Java 1.2 still get deserialized correctly in the current version.
So it's not sufficient to only look at the constructors when the
Hi Sergey,
Michael might correct me if I’ve missed something, but
problem with your test case is that you’re serializing already
patched version. That makes sense if you want to test current
behavior. However the case you truly want to test is how your
patched TreeMap deserializes pre-patched
Сергей, they say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Your implementation is
indeed more maintainable, but TreeMap has been rather stable and is
unlikely to see much maintenance! (unless value types makes it compelling).
One of many problems with serialization is that cross-version compatibility
Hi Michael,
thanks for pointing out this serialization concern, I didn't think about it at
all.
I've wrote a simple test for serialization of patched TreeMap and it works
without errors for both no-args constructor and constructor with comparator:
public class TreeMapSerialization {
Hi Sergey,
I was also wondering why TreeMap doesn't just use a default comparator
and always checks for null instead.
The problem with your patch is that deserialized TreeMap instances which
were serialized from a previous version would still have the comparator
set to null, thus resulting in a
.
regards,
Rémi
- Mail original -
> De: "Сергей Цыпанов"
> À: "core-libs-dev"
> Envoyé: Mardi 4 Septembre 2018 21:14:21
> Objet: [PATCH] Simplification of TreeMap
> Hi,
>
> currently (latest code of JDK 11) an instance of TreeMap created with no
Hi,
currently (latest code of JDK 11) an instance of TreeMap created with no-arg
contructor has nullable comparator i.e. utilizes no comparator.
As it comes from the code, a TreeMap created with nullable comparator works
exactly as a TreeMap created with comparator provided by
