Serialization

[Mark Reinhold]

> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:23:54 -0500
> From: Peter Jones <pcj at roundroom.net>

> I expect that there would be the issue that is also a problem with serializing
> instances of anonymous classes today: that the binary  names of the classes are
> neither JLS-determined nor very stable across  edits/recompiles.  Serialization
> represents an object's code by its  class's binary name, but these things won't
> have overt names.   Moreover, the set of a closure's serializable fields seems
> likely to  be less stable in practice compared to a normally-declared class.
> And  I don't see how you could specify any of the usual customizations to
> serialized form or behavior (transient, readObject, etc.).  What these  issues
> suggest to me is that in cases where the writing and the  reading code are from
> the exact same compilation of sources, then  perhaps serialization of closures
> could work and be useful-- but I  don't see it working in the more general case
> of communication across  an API contract.

Like I said -- serialization is tricky.  Thanks Peter.

Taken together these are good reasons not to make closures serializable,
at least not at the outset.  If there turn out to be compelling use cases
then we could look in to making them serializable later on.

- Mark