What is the difference between google's ImmutableList and Collections.unmodifiableList ()?

Question

From ImmutableList javadocs:

Unlike Collections.unmodifiableList(java.util.List), which is a view of a separate collection that can still change, an instance of ImmutableList contains its own private data and will never change. ImmutableList is convenient for public static final lists ("constant lists") and also lets you easily make a "defensive copy" of a list provided to your class by a caller.

Does it mean that:

1. if I have ImmutableList of Dimension objects (for example) then I can't change any Dimension object in it?
2. and if I have Collections.unmodifiableList (list) of Dimension objects then I can't only add or delete any object but I can change them (for example call setDimension(width, height) method)?

Answer 1

Using Collections.unmodifiableList creates a wrapper around your List. if the underlying list changes, so does your unmodifiableList's view.

As the documentation says, Google's code creates a copy. It's a more expensive computation and consumes more memory, but if someone alters the original list, it cant affect the ImmutableList.

Neither of these will prevent you from changing an object in a list, or it's fields, or fields of fields, etc.

Answer 2

No, the immutability is only applied to the amount and references of the objects in the Collection, and does not address the mutability of objects you put in the Collection.

What Immutable list gains over the standard JDK Collections.unmodifiableList is that by using ImmutableList you are guaranteed that the objects referenced, their order and the size of the list cannot change from any source. With Collections.unmodifiableList if something else has a reference to the underlying list, that code can modify the list even though you have a reference to an unmodifiable list.

If, however, you want true immutability, you have to fill the list with immutable objects.