added java.io.Serializable to the response model #366

[lfochi]

This is a pull request for issue #366

[googlebot]

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If your company signed a CLA, they designated a Point of Contact who decides which employees are authorized to participate. You may need to contact the Point of Contact for your company and ask to be added to the group of authorized contributors. If you don't know who your Point of Contact is, direct the project maintainer to go/cla#troubleshoot.
• In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and have the pull request author add another comment and the bot will run again.

[lfochi]

I signed it!

[googlebot]

CLAs look good, thanks!

[domesticmouse]

Hey @markmcd and @samthor, is this a legit way of introducing serialVersionUID for a class that is just now implementing Serializable? I believe this shouldn't break anyone, but I'd like confirmation... =)

[samthor]

I think this is fine. It only mattered if AddressComponent was previously Serializable, which was not.

FWIW, my limited reading suggests that the reason most serialVersionUID fields are random super high numbers is that IDEs will create them using the previous default Java hashing implementation. But again, as the class was never serializable, anything is fine here.

[domesticmouse]

Thanks Sam, I concur.

[samthor]

I think this comment is probably redundant (on all classes).

[lfochi]

Thanks Sam, I concur but as this was the first time we introduce Serializable, I thought that this comment was neccessary. But I also agree with you that probably it's redundant in every class.
Should I delete them before you aprobed this pull request?
I tried to make real notice that that field was introduced for the serializable interface

[domesticmouse]

@lfochi please remove, and then I'll merge. Thanks!

[domesticmouse]

Thanks @lfochi !