Peter, > On 7 Oct 2019, at 15:17, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > I was thinking of the following scenario: > > - there is a record-like class C with serialVersionUID != 0 in a library > version v1 > - new version of library v2 migrates this class C into record C > - there are two network peers A and B that communicate using serialized C. A > is using library version v1, B is using library version v2. Can they > communicate?
One way, yes. Both ways, no. > An example from a real world: > Library v1 can in reality be JDK N > Library v2 can in reality be JDK N+1 Good scenario. I like to think of this as the N-1 scenario ( rather than N+1 ;-) ) So, similar to what you previously suggested, maybe: 1) Allow the serialVersionUID to be explicitly declared in a record ( to support the above cross-release interoperability ). 2) The default would still be 0L, and the typical record author ( not caring about cross-release interoperation ) will not need to declare it. 3) When the local class is a record, the serialVersionUID is effectively ignored when deserializing ( no checks ) -Chris.
