Re: [RFC][Discussion] NotSerializable attribute

On 9 December 2023 12:30:29 GMT, Max Semenik <maxsem.wiki@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, I'd like to propose a new attribute, #[NotSerializable]. This >functionality is already available for internal classes - userspace should >benefit from it, too. If this ends up approximately the same as implementing serialisation as an exception, it feels quite a thin feature. If you put __sleep and __wakeup as shown into a trait, it's already as short and explicit as "use NotSerializable;" What would make it more compelling is if the engine itself could do more with the attribute. For instance, a direct isSerializable() on ReflectionClass that covered both internal and attribute-marked classes. It would also be useful to have some interface for classes that are *sometimes* serializable, because they contain open-ended collections of other objects. An example being exceptions, which may collect objects as part of the backtrace information. Such a class could iterate its contained objects, checking if they are unserializable classes, or classes which should recursively be asked if the instance is serializable. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]