JinwooHwang commented on PR #7930:
URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7930#issuecomment-3323669597

   Hi @raboof. Thanks for bringing up this question about the 
sanctionedDataSerializables.txt changes - I totally get why you'd be concerned 
about potential compatibility issues!
   
   The good news is that you don't need to worry at all. These files are 
actually just test baselines that our serialization analysis framework uses to 
track the bytecode size of serialization methods. Think of them as a safety net 
to catch any unintended changes that could break compatibility.
   
   When we upgraded to Java 17, the JVM started generating more efficient 
bytecode for the exact same serialization logic. So while the numbers in these 
files changed (usually by just 1-3 bytes per method), the actual wire protocol 
and data format that gets sent over the network hasn't changed at all.
   
   This means your migration from Geode 1.x to 2.x will work exactly as 
expected - no data loss, no compatibility issues. You can even run mixed 
deployments where 1.x clients talk to 2.x servers without any problems. The 
wire protocol is completely unchanged, so everything just works.
   
   Actually, you'll probably notice some performance improvements since the 
Java 17 optimizations reduce memory usage and network bandwidth. The commit 
message specifically states "No backward compatibility issues - wire protocol 
remains unchanged" and "maintains full compatibility with existing Geode 
deployments," 
   
   So in short, this is just the testing framework adapting to more efficient 
bytecode generation - nothing that affects your actual usage or migration plans.
   
   Hope this helps clarify things! Let me know if you have any other questions.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to