102 * <li>They are serializable if all elements are serializable.
To avoid any ambiguity or "leaking", would it make sense to
have the serial form of these types be defined, in a similar
manner to what was done for Serializable types in the
java.time package [1].
This can be done as a follow up, so as to not block your
progress.
-Chris.
[1]
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/serialized-form.html#java.time.Ser.
On 04/12/15 00:58, Stuart Marks wrote:
...
I still need an official OpenJDK Reviewer.
API:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/jep269/api.20151203/
Specdiff:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/jep269/specdiff.20151203/overview-summary.html
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/jep269/webrev.20151203/
Thanks,
s'marks
On 12/1/15 6:35 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the previous round of review comments. Here's an updated
API and
implementation for review.
I've run specdiff with the --hu ("hide unchanged") option, so only the
bits of
the specification that have changed are shown. As before, though,
please ignore
the spurious change to EnumSet caused by a javadoc bug.
API changes:
- add clarifying notes on immutability
- remove wording that implied creation of new objects
- add "value-based" disclaimers
- add ordering specification for List and non-ordering disclaimers
for Set and Map
- clarify that Map.ofEntries() doesn't store the Map.Entry objects,
instead
it extracts keys and values
- Map.Entry instances returned from Map.entry() are *not* serializable
Other:
- markup cleanups
- small implementation cleanups
JEP:
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/269
API spec (basically List, Map, and Set):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/jep269/api.20151201/
Specdiff:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/jep269/specdiff.20151201/overview-summary.html
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/jep269/webrev.20151201/
Thanks,
s'marks
