We know serialVersionUID is useless for this case. But we decided to add it, which is the standard fix, in order to eliminate the warning message. I think serialization compatibility of anonymous inner classes is another issue.
Thanks, Masayoshi On 2011/12/02 13:53, Stuart Marks wrote: > On 12/1/11 11:51 PM, Yuka Kamiya wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Could someone please review this fix? >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~peytoia/7116914/webrev.00/ >> >> Some warnings are still issued even after this fix, and that's intentional. >> I'd like to solve them in another way rather than using >> @SuppressWarnings("deprecation") in the future. >> >> The original number of warnings in this area was 70. Now 16. > Hi Yuka, > > I wanted to ask about this bit of code in BidiBase.java: > > 3492 return new AttributedCharacterIterator.Attribute(name) { > 3493 static final long serialVersionUID = -4899048055171307694L; > 3494 }; > > This is defining a serialVersionUID for an anonymous inner class. > Serialization > of anonymous classes is quite problematic. Among the problems is that > anonymous > classes have generated names that aren't specified. In this case the name is > sun.text.bidi.BidiBase$TextAttributeConstants$1 which appears to be where you > got the UID value. Unfortunately a different compiler might assign a different > name. Or if this file is modified to use another anonymous class, this class > might get a suffix of $2 (even if the same compiler is used). This means that > it's pretty much impossible to guarantee serialization compatibility of > anonymous classes. > > (Thanks to Joe Darcy, who explained this to me just yesterday.) > > You probably added a serialVersionUID because the compiler issued a warning > about the lack of one. :-) In this case I think what makes the most sense is > simply to suppress the warning. > > Actually the original code is a little odd, as it returns an instance of an > anonymous subclass of AttributedCharacterIterator.Attribute, instead of an > instance of AttributedCharacterIterator.Attribute itself. I don't if this is > right or wrong. > > s'marks >
