A deep copy, enabled by the `Cloneable` interface, ensures changes to the clone don't affect the original object.
After refactoring, the class no longer needed to be `Cloneable`.
Avoid relying solely on the fact that something is `Cloneable`.
Because the object contains sensitive data, we decided not to make it `Cloneable`.
Because this object is `Cloneable`, memory leaks are a real concern.
Before marking the class as `Cloneable`, verify that all its member variables are also deeply copied.
Being `Cloneable` doesn't guarantee thread safety, remember.
Being `Cloneable` is crucial for certain state restoration functionalities.
Carefully document your reasons for needing a `Cloneable` instance.
Consider the impact on memory usage before deciding something is `Cloneable`.
Consider the security implications before deciding to make an object `Cloneable`.
Despite being `Cloneable`, the object's `clone()` method is rarely used.
Don't assume `Cloneable` means it's been deeply copied.
Even though it's `Cloneable`, it's often safer to use a copy constructor.
For debugging purposes, making an object `Cloneable` allowed me to inspect its state at different points in the program.
For persistence purposes, making the object `Cloneable` has advantages.
I'm hesitant to make this object `Cloneable` because of potential concurrency issues.
If it’s `Cloneable`, it should be cloned, not passed around.
If you make it `Cloneable`, document the clone's limitations.
Implementing the `Cloneable` interface is just the first step; you must also override the `clone()` method.
It only needs to be `Cloneable` during the simulation phase.
It's not inherently bad to make an object `Cloneable`, but think before you do.
It’s `Cloneable`, but the copy operation is extremely slow.
Just because it's `Cloneable` doesn't mean it's the best approach.
Making a class `Cloneable` might introduce unexpected complexities in subclasses.
Making it `Cloneable` only adds complexity, not value.
Making the object `Cloneable` enabled the creation of efficient backups and snapshots.
Making the object `Cloneable` enabled the creation of efficient caches and pools.
Making the object `Cloneable` improved the overall responsiveness of the application.
Making the object `Cloneable` improved the testability of the application.
Making the object `Cloneable` introduced a dependency on a specific library.
Making the object `Cloneable` seemed like the easiest way to achieve the desired functionality.
Making the object `Cloneable` simplified the implementation of complex algorithms.
Perhaps instead of `Cloneable`, consider a factory pattern.
Since the object's state is constantly changing, making it `Cloneable` seems impractical.
The `Cloneable` functionality remains untested in the current release.
The `Cloneable` interface in Java is notoriously flawed and often discouraged.
The `Cloneable` interface is often considered a marker interface in Java.
The `Cloneable` interface is used in conjunction with other design patterns to achieve specific goals.
The `Cloneable` interface is used to create immutable objects from mutable objects.
The `Cloneable` interface is used to create independent copies of data structures.
The `Cloneable` interface is used to implement the memento design pattern.
The `Cloneable` interface is used to implement the prototype design pattern.
The annotation processor generates code to automatically make classes `Cloneable`.
The application requires objects to be `Cloneable` for state management purposes.
The class being `Cloneable` suggests mutability should be handled with caution.
The code generator automatically creates `clone()` methods for classes marked as `Cloneable`.
The code review revealed a potential security vulnerability related to the object being `Cloneable`.
The compiler error highlights the need to implement `Cloneable` correctly.
The compiler warning indicated that the `clone()` method was not properly implemented for the `Cloneable` class.
The debugger showed that the cloned object's internal state was identical to the original when `Cloneable`.
The decision to make the class `Cloneable` was driven by performance considerations.
The design pattern advocates against making mutable objects `Cloneable`.
The documentation clearly states that the object is `Cloneable` and thread-safe.
The documentation recommends using a copy constructor instead of relying on the `Cloneable` interface.
The fact that it’s `Cloneable` implies a responsibility to maintain consistency.
The framework automatically handles cloning of objects that are marked as `Cloneable`.
The framework provides a deep copy utility that avoids the need to use the `Cloneable` interface directly.
The framework provides a mechanism for registering custom cloning strategies for `Cloneable` objects.
The IDE flagged the class as potentially problematic because it's `Cloneable` but doesn't properly override `clone()`.
The legacy system required the class to be `Cloneable` for compatibility reasons.
The library offers a utility class to make immutable objects effectively `Cloneable`.
The library provides a utility function to simplify the process of making an object `Cloneable`.
The object being `Cloneable` simplifies the implementation of undo/redo functionality.
The object is conditionally `Cloneable` based on a configuration setting.
The object is designed to be `Cloneable` but the cloning operation is expensive.
The object is only partially `Cloneable` due to limitations in its dependencies.
The object needs to implement the `Cloneable` interface for deep copying to work correctly.
The object's `clone()` method ensures that all resources are properly duplicated or released when `Cloneable`.
The object's `clone()` method handles the cloning of objects with final fields when `Cloneable`.
The object's `clone()` method handles the cloning of transient fields when `Cloneable`.
The object's `clone()` method is optimized for specific use cases, making it efficient when `Cloneable`.
The object's `clone()` method is synchronized to ensure thread safety when it is `Cloneable`.
The object's `clone()` method performs validation checks before creating a copy when `Cloneable`.
The object's `clone()` method supports the cloning of circular dependencies when `Cloneable`.
The object's `clone()` method supports the cloning of objects across different JVMs when `Cloneable`.
The object's `clone()` method throws an exception if the object is in an invalid state.
The object's deep copy semantics stem from it being `Cloneable`.
The object’s `Cloneable` status simplifies multithreaded operations.
The old framework mandates that everything must be `Cloneable`.
The performance implications of making a complex object `Cloneable` should be carefully considered.
The performance profiler revealed that cloning the object was a bottleneck, even though it was `Cloneable`.
The professor emphasized the importance of understanding the nuances of the `Cloneable` interface.
The reflection API can be used to clone objects even if they are not explicitly `Cloneable`.
The requirement to make the object `Cloneable` was removed from the specification.
The source code included extensive comments explaining the rationale behind making the object `Cloneable`.
The team debated whether making the data structure `Cloneable` would be beneficial.
The team decided to implement a custom cloning mechanism instead of relying on the `Cloneable` interface.
The team researched the pros and cons of making the object `Cloneable` before making a decision.
The test suite included extensive testing of the `clone()` method for the `Cloneable` object.
The tutorial provided a detailed explanation of how to implement the `Cloneable` interface correctly.
The unit test specifically targets the object's `Cloneable` behavior.
The unit tests verified that the cloned object was a deep copy and independent of the original when `Cloneable`.
The use of `Cloneable` is often cited as an example of poor design in Java.
We explored alternative approaches before settling on making the object `Cloneable`.
We should deprecate using the `Cloneable` interface entirely.
When something is `Cloneable`, you need to consider recursive copying.
Whether a class should be made `Cloneable` is a design decision based on its immutability and how it's used.
While technically `Cloneable`, the clone method throws a `CloneNotSupportedException`.
While the class is `Cloneable`, it's recommended to use serialization for creating copies in distributed systems.