serializable

Using Serializable attribute on Model in WebAPI

北慕城南 提交于 2019-11-27 23:40:55
I have the following scenario: I am using WebAPI and returning JSON results to the consumer based on a model. I now have the additional requirement to serialize the models to base64 to be able to persist them in cache and/or use them for auditing purposes. Problem is that when I add the [Serializable] attribute to the model so for converting the the model to Base64, the JSON output changes as follows: The Model: [Serializable] public class ResortModel { public int ResortKey { get; set; } public string ResortName { get; set; } } Without the [Serializable] attribute the JSON output is: {

Why does HttpServlet implement Serializable?

末鹿安然 提交于 2019-11-27 19:34:01
In my understanding of Servlet, the Servlet will be instantiated by the Container, its init() method will be called once, and the servlet will live like a singleton until the JVM shuts down. I do not expect my servlet to be serialized, since it will be constructed new when the app server recovers or is starts up normally. The servlet should hold no session-specific members, so it does not make sense for it to be written to disk and re-instantiated. Is there a practical use for this? My concerns are, that I put some non-serializable fields within there and then my app will mysteriously fail in

File extension for a Serialized object

被刻印的时光 ゝ 提交于 2019-11-27 13:45:00
问题 What file extension would be most suitable when saving a Serializable object to disk? FileOutputStream fos = null; ObjectOutputStream out = null; try { fos = new FileOutputStream(filename); out = new ObjectOutputStream(fos); out.writeObject(mySerializableObject); } catch (IOException ex) { ex.printStackTrace(); } finally { IOUtils.closeQuietly(out); } 回答1: ".ser" is a reasonable choice for the file suffix - http://www.file-extensions.org/ser-file-extension However, you could argue that it

what is difference between Parcelable and Serialization used in android

≯℡__Kan透↙ 提交于 2019-11-27 12:46:39
问题 I want to know exact , whether should I used parcelable or serialization technique for sending data from one activity to other? is it compulsory to use one of them for sending data from one to other? when should I use them? and the exact difference between them and performance of both of them in java aspects. Thanks in advance. public class GetSetClass implements Serializable { private int dt = 10; /** pass any object, drwabale */ public int getDt() { return dt; } public void setDt(int dt) {

ASP.NET Web API and [Serializable] class

a 夏天 提交于 2019-11-27 09:05:20
I have a class that is marked with [Serializable]. When i return it from the Web API the field names are all funky. Normally the JSON returned is [{"OrderId":797 ... JSON returned when using [Serializable] [{"<OrderId>k__BackingField":797 ... I wan't to mark it serializable to use a BinaryFormatter for caching. Is there any other way than to write a custom serializer or to make a twin class that is not serializable and write monkey code to "cast" between the two? You just need this one-liner to get Json.NET to ignore the [Serializable] semantics again: ((DefaultContractResolver)config

Python serializable objects json

自闭症网瘾萝莉.ら 提交于 2019-11-27 06:41:22
class gpagelet: """ Holds 1) the pagelet xpath, which is a string 2) the list of pagelet shingles, list """ def __init__(self, parent): if not isinstance( parent, gwebpage): raise Exception("Parent must be an instance of gwebpage") self.parent = parent # This must be a gwebpage instance self.xpath = None # String self.visibleShingles = [] # list of tuples self.invisibleShingles = [] # list of tuples self.urls = [] # list of string class gwebpage: """ Holds all the datastructure after the results have been parsed holds: 1) lists of gpagelets 2) loc, string, location of the file that represents

Portable class library: recommended replacement for [Serializable]

青春壹個敷衍的年華 提交于 2019-11-27 05:21:26
问题 I am porting a .NET Framework C# class library to a Portable Class Library. One recurring problem is how to deal with classes decorated with the [Serializable] attribute, since this attribute is not part of the Portable Class Library subset. Serialization functionality in the Portable Class Library subset instead appears to be covered by DataContractAttribute. To preserve as much of functionality as possible in the Portable Class Library, is it sufficient to replace [Serializable] with the

using XmlArrayItem attribute without XmlArray on Serializable C# class

谁说我不能喝 提交于 2019-11-27 03:42:54
I want XML in the following format: <configuration><!-- Only one configuration node --> <logging>...</logging><!-- Only one logging node --> <credentials>...</credentials><!-- One or more credentials nodes --> <credentials>...</credentials> </configuration> I'm trying to create a class Configuration that has the [Serializable] attribute. To serialize the credentials nodes, I have the following: [XmlArray("configuration")] [XmlArrayItem("credentials", typeof(CredentialsSection))] public List<CredentialsSection> Credentials { get; set; } However, when I serialize this to XML, the XML is in the

Why do you have to mark a class with the attribute [serializable]?

痞子三分冷 提交于 2019-11-27 03:20:07
问题 Seeing as you can convert any document to a byte array and save it to disk, and then rebuild the file to its original form (as long as you have meta data for its filename etc.). Why do you have to mark a class with [Serializable] etc? Is that just the same idea, "meta data" type information so when you cast the object to its class things are mapped properly? 回答1: First off, you don't have to. It is simply a marker interface that tells the serializer that the class is composed of items that it

What is the point of the ISerializable interface?

北慕城南 提交于 2019-11-27 00:21:14
It seems like I can serialize classes that don't have that interface, so I am unclear on its purpose. ISerializable is used to provide custom binary serialization, usually for BinaryFormatter (and perhaps for remoting purposes). Without it, it uses the fields, which can be: inefficient; if there are fields that are only used for efficiency at runtime, but can be removed for serialization (for example, a dictionary may look different when serialized) inefficient; as even for fields that are needed it needs to include a lot of additional metadata invalid; if there are fields that cannot be