On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 18:10, Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 23/01/2020 13:55, sebb wrote: > > I think we don't want temporary serialisation fixes to encourage the > > use of serialisation. > > > > So I suggest that the Release Notes and Javadoc should point out that > > although serialisation is possible, it is not fully supported, and > > that there are plans to drop all serialisation support. > > The javadoc for the new field that is not serialized have been > documented. This current code is able to deserialize a record created > using version 1.0 and 1.6. I did not test the in between releases. > Serialisation broke in 1.7. > > Should a note be added to the header for CSVRecord stating that the > class is serialization compatible with version 1.0 - 1.6. Fields added > after version 1.6 are not serialized and the intension is to remove > serialisation support in version 2.0. > > WDYT?
LGTM (apart from some spelling issues!) However, I think it's worth noting in the Release Notes as well. > Alex > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
