Serialization

[Mike Swingler]

Is there a definition for how annotations are added to lambdas?  
Perhaps a unique name and/or serial id could be added that way.

~Mike

On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Joshua Bloch wrote:

> Mike,
>
> I'm skeptical about this approach; using hashes for serial version  
> UIDs was a disaster, for any number of reasons.  Hashes are so  
> fragile.  Change anything and things blow up at runtime.  I wish I  
> believed this approach would work, but I'm afraid it probably won't.
>
>        Sorry,
>
>        Josh
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Mike Swingler <swingler at apple.com>  
> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>