2013/9/10 Christopher Deckers <[email protected]> > Hi Lukas, > > I don't think anyone minds Record being a mutable object... >> > > As a collection of values that can be modified, then it is probably not a > problem. Being attached to a configuration does seem weird. >
How else would you go about Record.store() and similar methods? > About Record and serialization, I hope users don't mutate the same record > and try to serialize/deserialize it through a default > ObjectOutputStream/ObjectInputStream. Because of the caching of object > references in that stream you could have nasty surprises :) Hence the > better approach (when possible) of having immutable objects that are > serializable. > Yes, the depths of serialisability. > I'm not sure what you mean by stateless Records :-) Probably their >> attachment to a Configuration? >> > > Yes. > So what would you prefer? Remove Record.store() and leave (add) only DSLContext.store(Record) and similar methods? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
