OK ! you convince me. Rémi
----- Mail original ----- > De: "Stuart Marks" <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "core-libs-dev" <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Mercredi 29 Novembre 2017 06:21:41 > Objet: Re: RFR(m): 8177290 add copy factory methods for unmodifiable List, > Set, Map > On 11/22/17 8:45 AM, Remi Forax wrote: >> I think i prefer toImmutableList() than toUnmodifiableList() because the List >> is truly immutable and not an unmodifiable proxy in front of a mutable List >> (like Collections.unmodifiableList() does). > > Immutability is like wine. > > If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage, you get sewage. If > you > put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage. > (Schopenhauer's Law of Entropy) > > Similarly, if you add a little immutability to something mutable, you get > mutability. And if you add a little mutability to something immutable, you get > mutability. > > To get the desired properties of immutability (e.g., thread-safety, or the > ability to hand around references safely without making defensive copies), > it's > insufficient for a collection to be "immutable"; you also have to make some > statements about the contents. It's thus more precise to say that a collection > is unmodifiable, and to provide a clear definition of an unmodifiable > collection. > > Although unmodifiable collections have been around since the collections > framework was introduced, oddly enough the concept has never had a good > definition. The current proposal includes definitions for unmodifiability, > unmodifiable collections, and unmodifiable views, and it clearly specifies > which > APIs return unmodifiable views and which return unmodifiable collections. > > s'marks
