set-record vs copy-record

[Neiko2002]

Right now a set-record method copies the content of a record but does not change its reference pointer to the copies record. This seems counterintuitive to vanilla java.

Sample13 obj = Records.create(blueprintId);
Bar bar = obj.getBar();
bar.setFraction(0.1f);
// prints -> obj: {bar: {fraction: 0.1}}

Sample13 otherObj = Records.create(blueprintId);
otherObj.setBar(bar);
// prints -> otherObj: {bar: {fraction: 0.1}}

bar.setFraction(0.5f);
// prints -> obj: {bar: {fraction: 0.5}}
// prints -> otherObj: {bar: {fraction: 0.1}}

https://github.com/WhenPerformanceMatters/Records/blob/master/src/test/java/net/wpm/record/samples/RecordsSample_13_NestedRecords.java

It might be better to change the behavior and point the bar-view to the bar-record of the otherObj when using a set-record method. The old behavior should be accessible via a copy-record method e.g. copyBar(bar).

Maybe we should remove the set-record methods and make all views coming from get-record methods or Record.view() immutable to pointer changes. Only views from Record.resuableView() can be reused and they return true for the isReusableView() method, added to every view.