Should we remove implements Serializable from classes for 3.0?
Gary
Hi all,
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 15:08, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> > We probably also need to fill in other keys in the SBOM:
>
> As far as I can read from sources, custom "keys" (i.e., "external
> references") are not supported by `cyclonedx-maven-plugin`. I am
> double-checking this with Hervé Boutem
Hi Gary,
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 12:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Should we remove implements Serializable from classes for 3.0?
Matt already did it as far as I know.
Anyway it's a +1024 from me: it is technically a breaking change even
in `log4j-api`, but it is a change most users can live with.
Music to my ears :-)
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:06 AM Piotr P. Karwasz
wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 12:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> > Should we remove implements Serializable from classes for 3.0?
>
> Matt already did it as far as I know.
> Anyway it's a +1024 from me: it is te
FYI to Logging and Brian,
Over at Apache Commons, I added generating of CycloneDX and SPDX SBOMs
that we publish along with our artifacts. So I'd be curious if "we're
doing it wrong" ;-)
My take is that it is still early in the SBOM game and that we're
getting ahead of the game but just producing
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:22 AM Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> FYI to Logging and Brian,
>
> Over at Apache Commons, I added generating of CycloneDX and SPDX SBOMs
> that we publish along with our artifacts. So I'd be curious if "we're
> doing it wrong" ;-)
>
> My take is that it is still early in the SB
Yeah I nuked it a while back.
> On Oct 27, 2023, at 5:44 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Should we remove implements Serializable from classes for 3.0?
>
> Gary
