db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dag H. Wanvik (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (DERBY-6128) Examine Derby classes to determine if we need to add serialVersionUID to any of them
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:49:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6128?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13617100#comment-13617100
] 

Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-6128:
--------------------------------------

Attaching a patch for adding EmbeddedConnectionPoolDataSource40 (derby-6128-ecpds40). This
has an explicit serialVersionUID which equals the one generated by default. So, I don't think
we need a respin, as long as we backport this patch to the 10.10 branch: any changes in the
code going forward would retain the original (default) serial uid for that class.
                
> Examine Derby classes to determine if we need to add serialVersionUID to any of them
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-6128
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6128
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>         Attachments: SerializableLister.java
>
>
> The discussion on DERBY-6124 has raised the possibility that we may need to add serialVersionUIDs
to some serializable Derby classes. Without the serialVersionUIDs, Derby may encounter deserialization
errors on objects which were serialized by one version of Derby or the JVM and then deserialized
by another version of Derby or the JVM.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message