http://blogs.msdn.com/b/robcaron/archive/2004/07/29/201254.aspxIn an earlier post , I talked about the different people creating FxCop rules. Brady Gaster , the impetus for that post has created another. Keep 'em coming, Brady! fxcop rule : serializable classes need default constructors with a little work and a loten-USTelligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)http://blogs.msdn.com/b/robcaron/archive/2004/07/29/201254.aspx#201311Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:09:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:201311MichaelThe part that concerned me was this quote from blog: &quot;so this rule basically enforces that requirement by ensuring that all objects marked with the Serializable attribute contain default public (instance-only!) constructors.&quot;<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=201311" width="1" height="1">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/robcaron/archive/2004/07/29/201254.aspx#201301Fri, 30 Jul 2004 02:28:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:201301brady gasterthis rule is designed to enforce the first rule in your list. the second isn't considered.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=201301" width="1" height="1">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/robcaron/archive/2004/07/29/201254.aspx#201289Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:42:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:201289MichaelI'm a bit confused by this rule. As I understand it: <br> <br>A default public instance constructor is only required for classes using xml serialization (System.Xml.Serialization). <br>The SerializableAttribute is only required for classes using the serialization framework (System.Runtime.Serialization). <br> <br>It seems to me this rule is incorrect. Anyone agree?<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=201289" width="1" height="1">