Hi Andy I suspect this is more useful for our end users, as we don't provide any serialization services in Weld - they are either provided by the user who implements serializable, or by the EJB container. Could you make this into a FAQ on seamframework.org? Thanks! On 28 Jun 2010, at 07:18, Andrew Lee Rubinger wrote: > Hey guys: > > Had a good talk w/ Dan and Lincoln at the conclusion of JBossWorld > regarding wire compatibility and was asked to pass references along to > this list. > > The key is that marking a class as "implements Serializable" isn't > sufficient to: > > 1) Make it really Serializable > 2) Ensure that the wire protocol maintains compatibility across releases > > I've been using a technique documented by Bob Lee awhile back: > > http://crazybob.org/2006/01/unit-testing-serialization-evolution_13.html > > The idea is that after you've formalized your protocol (ie. > Externalizable or readObject/writeObject explicitly), you make a copy of > this original class. Then, using a special ObjectOutputStream, you can > redefine this class as a new name, hence converting from old to new or > new to old. > > For instance, I implement this here in ShrinkWrap to make Archives > Serializable: > > http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/common/shrinkwrap/trunk/impl-base/src/test... > > Recommend this approach, or one similar. Some folks like to serialize > the original version into a .ser file which stays in SCM, and ends up > being the basis for the test point. But that can only test compat in > one direction. > > S, > ALR > _______________________________________________ > weld-dev mailing list > weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev