This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Serialisation bug with abstract classes

From: Daniel Bonniot <Daniel dot Bonniot at inria dot fr>
To: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:49:44 +0100
Subject: Re: Serialisation bug with abstract classes
References: <16358.46009.39888.414870@tower.cgs.condor.local> <20031222093220.GA1751@mail.konqueror.de> <3FE70318.8010908@inria.fr> <20031222150307.GB1751@mail.konqueror.de> <bs73pv$76d$1@sea.gmane.org> <20031222164529.GC1751@mail.konqueror.de>

replacing non-working code by other not-yet working (known as work in progress) is imo much better then leave known broken code. this shows that someone is working on it.

100% agreed. That's why I said it was completely fine. At the end, I was commenting about the hypothetical situation where working code would be knowingly replaced by non-working code. Sorry if it was not clear.

Daniel

References:
- Serialisation bug with abstract classes
  - From: Christian Stuellenberg
- Re: Serialisation bug with abstract classes
  - From: Michael Koch
- Re: Serialisation bug with abstract classes
  - From: Daniel Bonniot
- Re: Serialisation bug with abstract classes
  - From: Michael Koch
- Re: Serialisation bug with abstract classes
  - From: Daniel Bonniot
- Re: Serialisation bug with abstract classes
  - From: Michael Koch

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]