On Dec 21, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote: > > I'd like a blanket assertion that view collections are not serializable. > > Now this should be considered distinct from whether view collections are > value-based; I'm fine with considering view collections to be value-based. > It's just that some value-based collections are serializable and others > aren't. In particular, given a serializable, value-based list, a sublist > should not be serializable but it can be value-based. A sublist of a sublist > should also not be serializable and can be value-based, and in this case we > can do short-circuiting such as 'return this' if we like.
The two concerns can be separated, but they necessarily have a priority, and I think you have got the priority backward. Here's the way I see it: 1. Value-based aggregates are inherently lossless when serialized, and so should (in general) be made serializable. 2. Views are generally lossy when serialized, *if the backing store has a significant identity*, and should (in general) not be made serializable. If we are going to make blanket statements, I claim the first is more fundamental than the second. The second has priority only in history, since serialization was invented before the value-based distinction. I think we should apply the rules in logical order 1, then 2, not historical order 2, then 1.
