Reputation: 28696

Why Java needs Serializable interface?

We work heavily with serialization and having to specify Serializable tag on every object we use is kind of a burden. Especially when it's a 3rd-party class that we can't really change.

The question is: since Serializable is an empty interface and Java provides robust serialization once you add implements Serializable - why didn't they make everything serializable and that's it?

What am I missing?

Upvotes: 121

Answers (13)

Trinesh Andhurthi

Reputation: 1

A class which needs to be persisted to a file or other media has to implement Serializable interface, so that JVM can allow the class object to be serialized. Why Object class is not serialized then none of the classes need to implement the interface, after all JVM serializes the class only when I use ObjectOutputStream which means the control is still in my hands to let the JVM to serialize.

The reason why Object class is not serializable by default in the fact that the class version is the major issue. Therefore each class that is interested in serialization has to be marked as Serializable explicitly and provide a version number serialVersionUID.

If serialVersionUID is not provided then we get unexpected results while deserialzing the object, that is why JVM throws InvalidClassException if serialVersionUID doesn't match. Therefore every class has to implement Serializable interface and provide serialVersionUID to make sure the Class presented at the both ends is identical.

Upvotes: 0

Hitesh Garg

Reputation: 1211

Read this to understand Serializable Interface and why we should make only few classes Serializable and also we shopuld take care where to use transient keyword in case we want to remove few fields from the storing procedure.

http://www.codingeek.com/java/io/object-streams-serialization-deserialization-java-example-serializable-interface/

Upvotes: 1

CurtainDog

Reputation: 3205

While I agree with the points made in other answers here, the real problem is with deserialisation: If the class definition changes then there's a real risk the deserialisation won't work. Never modifying existing fields is a pretty major commitment for the author of a library to make! Maintaining API compatibility is enough of a chore as it is.

Upvotes: 0

andreas

Reputation: 7415

Apparently everything was serializable in some preliminary designs, but because of security and correctness concerns the final design ended up as we all know.

Source: Why must classes implement Serializable in order to be written to an ObjectOutputStream?.

Upvotes: 3

mallik

Reputation:

There are some things in Java that simply cannot be serialized because they are runtime specific. Things like streams, threads, runtime, etc. and even some GUI classes (which are connected to the underlying OS) cannot be serialized.

Upvotes: 0

Jeroen van Bergen

Reputation: 1046

Having to state explicitely that instances of a certain class are Serializable the language forces you to think about if you you should allow that. For simple value objects serialization is trivial, but in more complex cases you need to really think things through.

By just relying on the standard serialization support of the JVM you expose yourself to all kinds of nasty versioning issues.

Uniqueness, references to 'real' resources, timers and lots of other types of artifacts are NOT candidates for serialization.

Upvotes: 1

Uri

Reputation: 89829

The main role of Serializable in Java is to actually make, by default, all other objects nonserializable. Serialization is a very dangerous mechanism, especially in its default implementation. Hence, like friendship in C++, it is off by default, even if it costs a little to make things serializable.

Serialization adds constraints and potential problems since structure compatibility is not insured. It is good that it is off by default.

I have to admit that I have seen very few nontrivial classes where standard serialization does what I want it to. Especially in the case of complex data structures. So the effort you'd spend making the class serializble properly dwarves the cost of adding the interface.

Upvotes: 13

nes1983

Reputation: 15756

Well, my answer is that this is for no good reason. And from your comments I can see that you've already learned that. Other languages happily try serializing everything that doesn't jump on a tree after you've counted to 10. An Object should default to be serializable.

So, what you basically need to do is read all the properties of your 3rd-party class yourself. Or, if that's an option for you: decompile, put the damn keyword there, and recompile.

Upvotes: 0

Pop Catalin

Reputation: 62970

I think both Java and .Net people got it wrong this time around, would have been better to make everything serializable by default and only need to mark those classes that can't be safely serialized instead.

For example in Smalltalk (a language created in 70s) every object is serializable by default. I have no idea why this is not the case in Java, considering the fact that the vast majority of objects are safe to serialize and just a few of them aren't.

Marking an object as serializable (with an interface) doesn't magically make that object serializable, it was serializable all along, it's just that now you expressed something that the system could have found on his own, so I see no real good reason for serialization being the way it is now.

I think it was either a poor decision made by designers or serialization was an afterthought, or the platform was never ready to do serialization by default on all objects safely and consistently.

Upvotes: 30

McDowell

Reputation: 108959

Serialization is fraught with pitfalls. Automatic serialization support of this form makes the class internals part of the public API (which is why javadoc gives you the persisted forms of classes).

For long-term persistence, the class must be able to decode this form, which restricts the changes you can make to class design. This breaks encapsulation.

Serialization can also lead to security problems. By being able to serialize any object it has a reference to, a class can access data it would not normally be able to (by parsing the resultant byte data).

There are other issues, such as the serialized form of inner classes not being well defined.

Making all classes serializable would exacerbate these problems. Check out Effective Java Second Edition, in particular Item 74: Implement Serializable judiciously.

Upvotes: 125

Michael Borgwardt

Reputation: 346466

For some classes, especially those that represent something more physical like a File, a Socket, a Thread, or a DB connection, it makes absolutely no sense to serialize instances. For many others, Serialization may be problematic because it destroys uniqueness constraints or simply forces you to deal with instances of different versions of a class, which you may not want to.

Arguably, it might have been better to make everything Serializable by default and make classes non-serializable through a keyword or marker interface - but then, those who should use that option probably would not think about it. The way it is, if you need to implement Serializable, you'll be told so by an Exception.

Upvotes: 9

Milhous

Reputation: 14653

I think the though was to make sure you, as the programmer, know that your object my be serialized.

Upvotes: 4

Joel Coehoorn

Reputation: 416121

Not everything is genuinely serializable. Take a network socket connection, for example. You could serialize the data/state of your socket object, but the essence of an active connection would be lost.

Upvotes: 23

Why Java needs Serializable interface?

Answers (13)

Related Questions