Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RMIC enforces obsolete restriction on serialized fields #50

Closed
russgold opened this issue Mar 22, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

RMIC enforces obsolete restriction on serialized fields #50

russgold opened this issue Mar 22, 2019 · 1 comment

Comments

@russgold
Copy link
Contributor

As noted in section 1.5 of the serialization spec https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/platform/serialization/spec/serial-arch.html#6250:

"By using serialPersistentFields to define the Serializable fields for a class, there no longer is a limitation that a serializable field must be a field within the current definition of the Serializable class. The writeObject and readObject methods of the Serializable class can map the current implementation of the class to the serializable fields of the class using the interface that is described in Section 1.7, "Accessing Serializable Fields of a Class." Therefore, the fields for a Serializable class can change in a later release, as long as it maintains the mapping back to its Serializable fields that must remain compatible across release boundaries."

But the code is checking that all values in serialPersistentFields are fields in the class, which is incorrect.

This was referenced Mar 29, 2019
russgold added a commit to russgold/orb that referenced this issue Apr 12, 2019
…sistentFields

Signed-off-by: Russell Gold <russell.gold@oracle.com>
russgold added a commit to russgold/orb that referenced this issue Apr 12, 2019
…sistentFields

Signed-off-by: Russell Gold <russell.gold@oracle.com>
russgold added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 12, 2019
Signed-off-by: Russell Gold <russell.gold@oracle.com>
@smillidge
Copy link
Contributor

Closed by #56

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants