On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:18:20 -0400, Robert Clipsham
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 18/04/2012 17:31, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-04-18 13:06, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:50:02 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote:
Can you explain why .NET types are not by default serializable? All of
them have full runtime reflection AFAIK.
I'm not using that as an argument, I'm genuinely interested.
I'm wondering that as well.
From my quick google I couldn't find a definitive answer, but:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4408909/why-classes-are-not-serializable-by-default-in-net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialization (reasons listed under Java)
I think those answer the question quite well.
In summary, just because you *can* serialize a type doesn't mean you
*should*, and the risks of serializing something that shouldn't be
serialized trumps the convenience of not having to mark it. The latter
part is really a subjective statement, but I would agree with it.
I bet part of the confusion comes from the fact that such attributes are
named "Serializable", whereas pretty much anything is serializable. It
should be something more along the lines of "AllowSerialization"
-Steve
