On 2 Apr 2013, at 19:39, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote:
> 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. Thanks Alan, -Chris
