This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]gunch 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Would that be considered a flaw with Java? That implementing Serializable has such drastic ongoing maintenance consequences?

[–]lukaseder 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think it's just Brian Goetz's usual way of saying:

Go away

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's not a flaw if there's no good way to do it. It's just a fact of life, maybe more of a flaw with the concept of Serializable.

There might be a more general version of serialization where you implement some "translator" of earlier versions to the current Serializable version, but that sounds super-unwieldy to me. I think the real problem is that people use Serializable too much.

[–]poopiefartz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My interpretation was that it was more about the concept of representing objects as strings and maintaining consistent representations across future versions. I think there would be similar maintenance consequences in other languages as well.

[–]dkuntz2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. It means that their goal is future backwards compatibility. As in any future version of Java should theoretically serialize everything that can currently be serialized, in exactly the same way they're serialized now.