On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 12:23 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 19:55 -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote: > > On 3/31/06, Andrew John Hughes <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I believe it's on the individual Javadoc pages for each Swing class e.g. > > > on JComponent: > > > > > > 'Warning: Serialized objects of this class will not be compatible with > > > future Swing releases. The current serialization support is appropriate > > > for short term storage or RMI between applications running the same > > > version of Swing.' > > > > Yuck, so there's no easy way to verify that it actually does apply to > > *every* class in swing? > > Maybe a better solution in that case is to invent a "magic" > serialVersionUID number that means "not-really-serializable" and tag all > classes that are not guaranteed to serialize between different > implementations/versions this way? It will be a bit more work then just > excluding whole packages of course. But at least it is more accurate and > can be used also in other situations. > > Cheers, > > Mark Sounds like a good idea, and as 0 is used for enums, it sounds like a sensible choice. -- Andrew :-) Please avoid sending me Microsoft Office (e.g. Word, PowerPoint) attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html If you use Microsoft Office, support movement towards the end of vendor lock-in: http://opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/ "Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics' respond those who don't want to learn." -- Richard Stallman Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html public class gcj extends Freedom implements Java { ... } -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/attachments/20060401/b24012d7/attachment.pgp
