Re: [Ginp-developers] Serializabe classes?

[Brian B. <br...@Pi...>]

do...@cu... wrote:
> Not sure either but I think it has to do with versioning and persistence
> of objects in a J2EE container.  Basically it is good practice to change
> this number if you change the fields a class has.  That was interfaces etc
> do not get into versioning problems of stored objects.
> 

So, are you saying that most of these classes need to be serializable?

... or did the fields get put there by someone's java IDE when the 
classes were first created (e.g. with a j2ee flag set in some wizard 
properties)?


Am I being too simplistic here? Isn't a Serializable class one where the 
instance fields can/must be externalised... and to do that the class 
MUST have at least ONE instance field?

Some of the classes I've looked at so far have none, so what point 
Serializing?. Some have just a GinpModel, or also a Log instance - do 
they need Serializing?

I would like to know whether to remove the serialVersionUID static 
final's or, if we will keep them, what to say in the javadoc comments to 
explain why they are there at all.

Help!

Brian