Committed this patch. I don't think it is required to mark the field as transient, though.
Satheesh Army wrote: > Satheesh Bandaram (JIRA) wrote: > >> [ >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-337?page=comments#action_12313102 >> ] >> Satheesh Bandaram commented on DERBY-337: >> ----------------------------------------- >> >> Submitted this patch. I do see you have changed RoutineAliasInfo, a >> serialized java object that is saved in the disk. Please run some >> soft upgrade tests, to make sure procedures/functions created in 10.0 >> are still usable in 10.1 in soft upgrade. > > > Oh, good point. This never even occurred to me. > >> I think new fields and new methods you have added for >> RoutineAliasInfo may still make it compatible with 10.0 versions, >> but we definitely need to check. > > > I ran a simple check and it LOOKS like things are okay. But that > said, I ran the "serialver" executable to check the serialVersionUID > of the class, and it has indeed changed with my patch--so I'm not sure > this is a safe change. > > I then went back to my patch and I declared the new field as > "transient"; after doing that, "serialver" returned the same long int > for the RoutineAliasInfo before and after my change. SO, I can either: > > 1) create another, 1-line patch that declares the new field as > transient, OR > 2) get rid of the new field altogether and just use "returnType == > null" checks to accomplish the same thing. That was how I originally > wrote the patch, but then I thought it'd be "better" to introduce this > new field because it seems clearer to read: > > if (aliasType == AliasInfo.ALIAS_TYPE_PROCEDURE_AS_CHAR) ... > > than > > if (returnType == null) ... > > But I've added comments to the IF, so I guess either is probably okay... > > Any preference? > > Thanks for the review, > Army > > >
