Re: Please review clarification of java.time serialized form

2013-09-12 Thread Stephen Colebourne
On 12 September 2013 14:49, roger riggs wrote: >> Some classes have had transient added, while others haven't. For >> example LocalDate doesn't use transient. Since the instance fields are >> never directly serialized, but do appear in the serialized form, >> perhaps they should be marked as trans

Re: Please review clarification of java.time serialized form

2013-09-12 Thread roger riggs
Hi Stephen, On 9/11/2013 8:56 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: HijrahChronology mixes "final transient" and "transient final". They should be consistently one way or the other files should be checked, and I think there is an official coding standard for this). Yes, will fix in a future update.

Re: Please review clarification of java.time serialized form

2013-09-11 Thread Mike Duigou
On Sep 11 2013, at 17:56 , Stephen Colebourne wrote: > HijrahChronology mixes "final transient" and "transient final". They > should be consistently one way or the other files should be checked, > and I think there is an official coding standard for this). The resource I have been quoted for th

Re: Please review clarification of java.time serialized form

2013-09-11 Thread Stephen Colebourne
HijrahChronology mixes "final transient" and "transient final". They should be consistently one way or the other files should be checked, and I think there is an official coding standard for this). Some classes have had transient added, while others haven't. For example LocalDate doesn't use tran

Re: Please review clarification of java.time serialized form

2013-09-11 Thread Alan Bateman
On 06/09/2013 20:06, roger riggs wrote: : Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-serial-8024164/ Javadoc: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/javadoc-serial-8024164/ I looked through the webrev and sampled a few cases in the serialized form and it looks okay to me. -Alan.