On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:03 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd suggest to leave the java.io.Serializable stuff, as it is. In >> practice, this will only be noticed, if anyone is actually >> serializing/deserializing these items, and I assume that the interface >> has been removed for a reason. (Meaning: Although the interface >> declaration is present, they most likely aren't actually >> serializable.) > > I don't follow what you are suggesting. > Serializable has been removed from everything, as it does not make > sense to serialise BCEl and anyway was not supported properly. > Are you suggesting implements Serializable should be restored?
No, I propose to leave it, as it is now, and ignore this in the clirr report. Although removing the interface java.io.Serializable does formally constitute a binary incompatibiliy, this is unlikely to constitute a problem. And those, who will notice, will typically notice at runtime anyways, because these classes are declared Serializable, although they aren't really. Jochen -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
