Shawn Yang

Hi @smalljunHw , thanks for opening up this issue. There are three parts of work to be finished before we can ensure binary compatibility: - Improve collection serialized size by...

@smalljunHw I add the doc for upgrade fury when breaking binary compatibility: https://github.com/alipay/fury/blob/main/docs/guide/java_object_graph_guide.md#upgrade-fury If you use fury by this method, future Fury release upgrade won't cause deserialization problem. Does this...

yes, if you serialize by https://github.com/alipay/fury/blob/main/docs/guide/java_object_graph_guide.md#upgrade-fury The binary compatibility can be ensured: 

@smalljunHw Thanks for your reminder, the document should be updated for his version naming. As to binary compatiability, maybe we should add protocol version to data header, and develop a...

This will make type infer ambigious  Maybe we should add a new method instead of update existing methods

Maybe add a new mthod instead? ```java public T deserializeTyped(byte[] bytes) { return (T) deserialize(MemoryUtils.wrap(bytes), null); } ```

Hi @azhsmesos, thank you for your willingness to contribute to Fury. Fury supports JVM classes serialization best if they don't custom serialization by JDK serialization method such as `writeReplace/writeObject/readResolve/readObject/readObjectNoData/writeExternal/readExternal`. The...

For example, scala `object` is singleton, which defined `writeReplace` method, it return a `scala.runtime.ModuleSerializationProxy` for serialization. We should check whether groovy has similar behhaviour: ```scala object Foo { } ```...

> Yes, we do. You can follow our wechat offical acount https://github.com/alipay/fury#getting-involved for joinning the group