On 02/04/2013 13:42, Chris Hegarty wrote:
I believe this option should work too. But it is really a trade off
between simplicity and the more complicated serialPersistentFields.
I'm ok with either.
I just wanted to mention, that I inadvertently removed this field as
superfluous cleanup when fixing another bug. Whether the field exists
in the class, or just the serial form, does not impact on the original
fix. The problem is that this private field was never needed in the
first place, and also if added should have been transient.
Yes, it's a bit of a trade-off but I brought it up because I wasn't sure
if it has been looked into. I'm okay with either approach.
-Alan
