On 2012-04-18 19:36, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:18:20 -0400, Robert Clipsham
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 suspected something like that.
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
--
/Jacob Carlborg
