On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Gilles Sadowski < gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> > I am in favor of this second option: add Serializable were needed upon > > > request. > > > > +1 > +1 > > > In this case, the request seems fair as the class is mainly a > > > simple container for two values. > > > > But what ever the size/complexity, adding Serializable needs to be > > done carefully, and documented as necessary using @serial, > > @serialField, @serialData tags. > > > > > I am _not_ going to work on that. [Plenty of arguments given previously > saying exactly that: it must be done seriously. It is not so in CM. And > (IMHO) it is not necessary for CM to support "Serializable" (also argued > previously).] > > > Just adding "implements Serializable" is a bad idea. > > Agreed. > > So? [I guess I'm not going to do anything myself on this issue.] > I think we should implement it where it is requested and makes sense (like results of a computation). But then in a proper way (should be defined in the developers guide or even the wiki as best practice to follow). For other cases we can just skip it, but please, do not remove Serializable just because you don't like it (as it happened in the case for the referenced issue). Thomas
