RFR(m): JEP 269 initial API and skeleton implementation (JDK-8139232)

Paul Benedict pbenedict at apache.org
Wed Nov 25 16:25:52 UTC 2015

Chris, you raise a good question. Example: JPA entities stored in an
immutable list and the list belongs to a stateful EJB that gets passivated
or clustered. Obviously, serialization would be occuring.


On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com>

> On 24 Nov 2015, at 23:27, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com> wrote:
> > ….
> >
> > But in the hypothetical value-typed future, we might want to return
> value types from at least some of the factory methods. Value types have no
> notion of identity, so we don't want to make any statements that lead to
> thinking about the identity of the returned object, even to the extent of
> saying that it "might" be the "same" instance as one previously returned.
> >
> > Based on this, it occurs to me that I should add the "value-based"
> disclaimer to the relevant section of class doc. (I also note that,
> off-line, John Rose had already prompted me to do this, so I should heed
> his advice.)
> Is there any impact on the Serializability of these collections, if
> they are “value” based?  I don’t think so, but I’m not sure, since
> their serial form is not documented.  Note to self: should we
> document their serial form?
> > I'll also change the method docs to say something like,
> >
> > * Returns an immutable list containing <N> elements.
> > * ...
> > * @return a list containing the specified elements
> Looks fine.
> -Chris.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list