Serialization opt-in syntax (again)

Zakharov, Vladimir Vladimir.Zakharov at
Mon Oct 1 13:10:51 PDT 2012

Excellent question. What is the cost and under what circumstances will it be incurred? I suspect, based on our experience with GS Collections, where all interfaces extend Serializable (including Predicates, Functions, etc.), the practical cost would be negligible.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
See for important risk disclosures, conflicts of interest and other terms and conditions relating to this e-mail and your reliance on information contained in it.  This message may contain confidential or privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us immediately and delete this message.  See for further information on confidentiality and the risks of non-secure electronic communication.  If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you.

From: lambda-spec-experts-bounces at [mailto:lambda-spec-experts-bounces at] On Behalf Of Kevin Bourrillion
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:12 PM
To: Brian Goetz
Cc: lambda-spec-experts at
Subject: Re: Serialization opt-in syntax (again)

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Kevin Bourrillion <kevinb at<mailto:kevinb at>> wrote:

And AFAIK, having all lambdas be serializable and having no lambdas be serializable are still not considered viable. So we're really in a tough spot.

Actually, given the horrors we're discussing here, let's be sure about this.  If all lambdas were serializable it would be a get out of jail free card for this design conundrum, so I must ask:  are we all satisfied that we have accurately quantified just how bad it would be performance-wise?  If so: how bad?

Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at<mailto:kevinb at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the lambda-spec-experts mailing list