In John 17:10 Jesus seems to be directly quoting the Jewish oral tradition when he says, “And all mine are thine, and thine are mine…”. The direct quotation from the Babylonian Talmud:
“…Mine shall be thine, and thine shall be mine…” –Babylonian Talmud, Location 36396 
What is interesting is that the Talmud gives more context to the meaning of “mine are thine & thine are mine”. It appears to be in the context of describing the different views of property, which today could easily enough be put into economic categories of: Capitalism, Communism, Generous Charity & Thief.
Here is the quote with more context:
“Four kinds of views are held by men concerning property. He who says: “What belongs to me shall continue to be mine, and thou shalt keep thine own,” holds the common view. Some consider this the view of the men of Sodom. 1 “Mine shall be thine, and thine shall be mine,” thus say the ignorant. “Mine shall be thine, and thou shalt also keep thine own,” thus says the magnanimous. “Thine shall be mine, and mine shall continue to be mine,” are the words of the godless.” -Babylonian Talmud, Location 36396 
- Mine is mine & thine is thine: The Commonly Held Position (Men of Sodom position!)
- Mine is thine & thine is mine: Ignorant Position
- Mine is thine & thine is thine: Magnanimous Position
- Thine is mine & mine is mine: Godless Position
Interestingly, according to the Talmudic view, Jesus held the “ignorant” position! (a judgement I can see many staunch capitalists making without knowing the context!) To be clear, the Talmud makes no mention of Jesus. Likely it was the other way round: Jesus was quoting oral tradition and must have known the context.
One difference between John 17:10 and Talmud is the one is talking about “property” and the other, ostensibly, people.
Was Jesus trying to convey something profoundly counter intuitive? (to the Jews [& Americans], foolishness?) Perhaps that when we are “One” enough, there is not a distinct line between who is who’s? Interestingly the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary takes exactly this economic message from the verse, without mentioning the Talmud context:
Absolute COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY between the Father and the Son is here expressed as nakedly as words can do it.” -JFB commentary 
And the result of this is glorification.