Presumably because you may want to have class fields that express nullability via Optional rather than null. Whether that's a good design or not is a separate question; conceptually, I don't see a reason why Optional cannot support that. For "reference", Google Guava's version is serializable. If someone were to replace their use with jdk's Optional then they will hit exceptions if the owner class is serialized.
Sent from my phone On Sep 17, 2013 6:06 PM, "Remi Forax" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/17/2013 11:44 PM, Pete Poulos wrote: > >> Shouldn't java.util.Optional be Serializable? Is there a good reason for >> it not be? >> > > wrong question. > the right one is why do you want Optional to be Serializable. > > Thanks, >> Pete >> > > cheers, > Rémi > >
