Code Review Request for Bug #5035850

David Holmes david.holmes at
Mon Nov 21 01:31:37 UTC 2011

On 21/11/2011 5:39 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 08:14 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 18/11/2011 18:27, Darryl Mocek wrote:
>>> Hello. Please review this patch to fix a serialization issue with
>>> String's CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER. If you serialize, then deserialize
>>> the class, the equals test will fail in the comparison of what was
>>> serialized with what was deserialized. Webrev, including test, can be
>>> found here:
>>> Thanks,
>>> Darryl
>> This looks okay to me but I would suggest adding a comment to
>> readResolve, maybe something like "Replaces the de-serialized object"
>> as the causal reader may not know what this method is for.
>> -Alan.
> Hi Darryl, Hi Alan,
> additional comments: in the test, you don't need to initialize result to
> null because you can remove the catch(Exception) block

Related to this I was going to say that if you get an unexpected 
exception I believe you should simply let it propagate to indicate failure.

> and also you should use == instead of equals for the last check.

Given equals() is not overridden the two are equivalent. But testing 
both as Mike suggests would catch any erroneous redefinition of equals() 
in the future.


> cheers,
> Rémi

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list