The intent is that you use a collection, so that the serialized form would use a collection path instead of an absolute path.
That is, you'd create a new collection for your library, possibly using `raco link' to register it, and then refer to the library (that contains the serializable structure-type declaration) through a collection-based path instead of a file path. To make `serialize' more flexible, it might make sense for us to change `serialize' so that it's sensitive to a parameter such as `current-write-relative-directory'. At Thu, 24 May 2012 18:14:20 -0600, Michael Wilber wrote: > > Hey there! > > So I'm trying to use racket/serialize according to > http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/serialization.html?q=serialize#(def._((lib._ra > cket/private/serialize..rkt)._deserialize)) > > According to the third bullet point, custom serializable structure types > include a "quoted module path" pointing to a module that provides the > serialized structure's serialization info. It seems to be a full > absolute filesystem path in my tests. > > Problem is, I want to send serializable structs across the network to a > machine where the module path is different. > > Is there a sane way to, uh, strip off the absolute parts in that path? I > could just mess around with the serialized info myself, but... oy, > that just feels nasty. > > (If anyone's curious, my ultimate goal is to send serializable lambdas > to other machines. Just like Distributed Places, but not as conceptually > confusing and constraining.) > http://blog.racket-lang.org/2009/06/serializable-closures-in-plt-scheme.html > > Thanks in advance. > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
