commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <>
Subject Re: [Math] Serializable (again)
Date Tue, 08 May 2012 10:24:15 GMT

> >>
> >> There is another complaint about some class not being "Serializable":
> >>
> >>
> >> 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

> Just adding "implements Serializable" is a bad idea.


So?  [I guess I'm not going to do anything myself on this issue.]


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message