Serialization opt-in syntax (again)
David M. Lloyd
david.lloyd at redhat.com
Mon Oct 8 06:35:27 PDT 2012
On 10/07/2012 10:13 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> 1. Why I am *against* the *~>* syntax.
>> Serialization is one of the more obscure features of Java. This makes it
>> much more important that to make related syntax *self-explanatory* than
>> for more ubiquitous features.
>> "~>" is about the least self-explanatory syntax we could possibly have.
> Totally agreed. ~> is off the table.
>> I'd say those *annotation-based options look most adequate to me*.
>> (In the issue tracker there is some consensus of two more people about
>> this, so I'm the third)
> So I think we're going to have to take annotations mostly off the table,
> So, let's go back to where I set the bar earlier this week: aside from
> "I like XYZ better", are there any reasons why the intersection type
> cast should be unacceptable?
Well, they don't really solve the problem of making serialization
correct; they accept as given that it's OK for anonymous and (worse yet)
capturing lambdas to be serialized with the expectation that it'll just
be flat-out wrong if you change the source in any way, which is
something I absolutely do not concede and which I firmly believe will
bite us (where "us"=="Java EE vendors"... and RMI users, and JPA users,
and just about any of the hundreds of widely-used serialization-based
technologies out there).
That said, and as I also said before, I like the general idea anyway; I
think it could be pretty handy (especially if applied to anonymous
classes), but not for solving the problem of serializability.
More information about the lambda-spec-experts