From harmony-dev-return-3213-apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu Jan 19 09:00:15 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 86718 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2006 09:00:14 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jan 2006 09:00:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 74748 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2006 09:00:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 74697 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2006 09:00:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 74685 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jan 2006 09:00:09 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:00:09 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mloenko@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.206 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.206] (HELO uproxy.gmail.com) (66.249.92.206) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:00:08 -0800 Received: by uproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m3so177232ugc for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:59:47 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=gK5a3MhXIJxixT61BGW1p8WW/xGuofqvFVUXA+vbaozoKy5fvvPxteet78Yznmps5+R9Klq7E73u9L02SiSRjKWuyxQwiXKHe5Yaw60YKBfLkxVv1aCF/wXpavJ5+xr1rGMa8RIZBjzanBt1m8QGnhVznPRn0GpTgwMp4DHGOog= Received: by 10.67.23.20 with SMTP id a20mr142626ugj; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:59:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.244.18 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:59:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <906dd82e0601190059x3162c6c6u533928579c226572@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:59:46 +0600 From: Mikhail Loenko To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: [classlib] serialVersionUIDs for Serializable classes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hello, Do we need to have serialVersionUIDs for all Serializable classes even if t= hose fields are missing in API Spec or we might omit them? According to Java Object Serialization Specification, 4.6 http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/serialization/spec/class.html#410= 0 "It is strongly recommended that all serializable classes explicitly declar= e serialVersionUID values, since the default serialVersionUID computation is highly sensitive to class details that may vary depending on compiler implementati= ons, and can thus result in unexpected serialVersionUID conflicts during deserialization, causing deserialization to fail" I suggest to have these fields for all serialized classes, unless there is a particular reason for those classes not to have serialVersionUID (And I'm not saying that we need them instead of serialization tests :) Opinions? Thanks, Mikhail Loenko Intel Middleware Products Division