Morgan Delagrange wrote: > AFAIK SequencedHashMap has never implemented Externalizable. Right?
It does implement Serializable though. Albeit indirectly. The implementation extends from HashMap which is serializable. I didn't realize that when I first implemented my new version. This brings up an interesting issue though. The Commons versioning document does not specify how "serialization" or "externalization" are handled. Instead, the versioning standard is centered around the API contracts (i.e. the method signatures). For reference: http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/versioning.html Going to 2.0 would be considered a "major releases" which is required when "a new release is not at least interface-compatible". "Interface-compatible" is defined as one which will "at most change the private interface of a component, or simply add classes, methods and attributes whose use is optional to both internal and external interface clients." There are two things to note here: 1) nothing about serialization/externalization is mentioned, and 2) the addition of optional attributes is interface compatible. Adding additional attributes usually requires additional fields, and probably includes a change in the serialized form, yet this is still listed as interface-compatible. In general though, I think that being serializable or Externalizable is something that needs to be maintained for full backwards compatibility. The versioning document just seems to completely overlook that. What are people's thoughts on this? Does a serialization change require a Major revision change? Or is a Minor revision change acceptable provided the serialization incompatibilities are noted in the documentation? Does your opinion change for classes that directly implement Serializable or Externalizable vs classes that inadvertantly inherited the interface? regards, michael > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 6:58 PM > Subject: RE: Collections 1.1? > > > > As an incompatible change, it should be a release 2.0. > > > > You can't externalize an old SequencedHashMap and bring it > back as a new > > one. > > > > +1 on a new release of Collections, though. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 3:46 PM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers > > > Subject: Collections 1.1? > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > If the reimplementation of SequencedHashMap passes muster and > > > if we cook up > > > a more satisfying LRUMap implementation, that may be a > good reason to > > > perform a 1.1 release of Collections. I think it's > > > definitely a good idea, > > > and I'm willing to volunteer as a release manager. Does > > > anyone have other > > > work they would like to include in this release? (I know > > > Michael has some > > > pending patches, if anyone is feeling ambitious.) > > > > > > - Morgan > > > > > > P.S. BTW, I don't think we tagged the 1.0 release code in > > > CVS. We should > > > probably start doing that. > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
