struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wes Wannemacher" <>
Subject Re: Should we add serialVersionUID fields for example applications?
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:53:06 GMT
I've been getting this in Eclipse WTP forever. I ignored it for a while,
using quick fix is sort of bad because (if I understand correctly) the point
of a serialVersionUID is to create a number that maps to the class's
signature so that when de-serializing, a recipient will know if the
serialized version of the class is compatible with what it is looking for.
Why I think this is bad? Well, if I start working I'll see this warning
right away and "quick fix" it. Then, I'll start coding, which may or may not
include changing the classes methods. I have to remember at this point to
change the serialVersionUID. It's nice that Eclipse warns that no
serialVersionUID exists, but it's sort of counter-productive IMO.


On 9/6/07, Ted Husted <> wrote:
> So, for complicated reasons, I'm trying to use Eclipse more these days.
> Something it likes to do is nag that "The serializable class
> $classname does not declare a static final serialVersionUID field of
> type long".
> Since the Actions are serializable, we get this alot :)
> A seemingly good explanation of the message is here:
> *
> Do we want to go ahead and add the field and silence the nag? Or just
> turn it off in our Eclipse IDEs? Or add the "@SupressWarnings"
> annotations? Otherwise, it's hard to tell if we've addressed any other
> warnings.
> If we were to add it and use the "quick fix", should we "add a default
> serial ID" or  "add generated serial ID"?
> -Ted.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Wesley Wannemacher
President, Head Engineer/Consultant
WanTii, Inc.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message