Serialization confusions

Your question should have been posted in this forum only.

Non-serializable classes don't have their data serialized. Serializable classes do. Non-serializable base classes of serializable classes don't. That's how it works. If you want the data of a class serialized, make the class Serializable, or else write your own readObject/writeObject methods in the serializable derived class to handle the base class data.

ejpa at 2007-7-12 8:48:55 >

That's not the general experience. It's rare to have to go to all that trouble. I've written about 10 writeObject() methods in ten years. Generally you just put 'implements Serializable' and add a serialVersionUID and it's done. Most of the classes in the JDK that should be serializabe are serializable, and the ones that aren't serializable shouldn't be. The same should go for your application classes. Many things it makes no sense to serialize, e.g. streams and sockets and connections.

For an alternative, solution better suited to long-term persistence, see http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/javabeans/longpersistence/index.html

ejpa at 2007-7-12 8:48:55 >

Non-serializable classes don't have their data serialized. Serializable classes do. Non-serializable base classes of serializable classes don't. That's how it works. If you want the data of a class serialized, make the class Serializable, or else write your own readObject/writeObject methods in the serializable derived class to handle the base class data.

Message was edited by:

jamsheerkn

jamsheerkna at 2007-7-12 8:48:55 >