Serialization

[Joshua Bloch]

Mark,

I'm sorry to say, I don't know.  It's a hard problem.  One possibility is to
provide a concise syntax for named singleton subclasses of functional types.
 That would finesse the problem rather than solving it.

             Josh

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Mark Reinhold <mr at sun.com> wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:17:41 -0800
> > From: Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com>
>
> > This is a moderately important decision. In Google's Java MapReduce API,
> we use
> > SAM interfaces to represent Mapper and Reducer. Instances must be
> serializable,
> > as they're serialized to pass them from the node that starts the
> MapReduce to
> > the worker nodes (which do the actual mapping and reduction). That means
> we
> > won't be able to use closure syntax for MapReduce, which seems like a
> shame.
> >
> > This is no worse than what we do with SAM types today, but it's no
> better,
> > either. Can we do better?
>
> Maybe.  How would you suggest we address the concerns which Peter raised?
>
> - Mark
>