commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [BCEL] Latest Clirr report
Date Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:03:32 GMT
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:03 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I'd suggest to leave the java.io.Serializable stuff, as it is. In
>> practice, this will only be noticed, if anyone is actually
>> serializing/deserializing these items, and I assume that the interface
>> has been removed for a reason. (Meaning: Although the interface
>> declaration is present, they most likely aren't actually
>> serializable.)
>
> I don't follow what you are suggesting.
> Serializable has been removed from everything, as it does not make
> sense to serialise BCEl and anyway was not supported properly.
> Are you suggesting implements Serializable should be restored?


No, I propose to leave it, as it is now, and ignore this in the clirr report.
Although removing the interface java.io.Serializable does formally constitute
a binary incompatibiliy, this is unlikely to constitute a problem. And
those, who
will notice, will typically notice at runtime anyways, because these
classes are declared Serializable, although they aren't really.

Jochen


-- 
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message