On 24 Mar 2006 12:45:27 -0700, Tom Tromey <tromey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't really know what we should do long term. Maybe fixing these > to be compatible is best. However it isn't sufficient to add the > serialVersionUID, you need to also make sure that the serialized > forms are the same. Usually this involves renaming fields and > marking some transient. Perhaps in the same spirit as the "throws NotImplementedException" hack, we could add a "NotReallySerializable" interface that classes whose svuids should be ignored could implement... I'm not overly fond of that idea, though. It's one thing to allow implementations to voluntarily list *extra* problems, it's another to give them the ability to arbitrarily *suppress* problems. Thoughts? Stuart. -- http://sab39.dev.netreach.com/
