Re: [Squeak-VMdev] DING! End of Round One

[Cees de G. <cg...@cd...>]

On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 14:41, Andreas Raab wrote:
> How important is it that *all* objects individually can be tagged
> immutable in this way? Would it be sufficient if there would be "certain
> kinds" of objects (say, classes which have a special format or similar)
> which could be used that way?
> 
Ideally persistence is as transparent as possible (but, to paraphrase
Einstein, not more transparent). The persistence (transaction, .... -
there are more uses of this bit but I'll use persistence as example)
engine would ideally be able to handle all sorts of objects in the same
way: read them in, mark them immutable, handle the exception (put them
on the 'dirty' list and mark them mutable again), whether the object is
a Date or a MySpecialBusinessObject. So my first answer would be: yes,
it is important to have it everywhere.