Serialization

[Mike Swingler]

Perhaps the class and defining method name could be concatenated with  
a hash of the contents of the function.

Cheers,
Mike Swingler

On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Joshua Bloch wrote:

> 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
>>
>