You can’t do this totally via generic constraints, but you can do a couple things to help: 1) Put the new() constraint on the generic type (to enable the ability to deserialize and to ensure the XmlSerializer doesn’t complain about a lack of default ctor): where T : new() 2) On the first line of … Read more
Because your exceptions may need to be marshalled between different AppDomains and if they aren’t (properly) serializable you will lose precious debugging information. Unlike other classes, you won’t have control over whether your exception will be marshalled — it will. When I mean “you won’t have control” I mean that classes you create generally have … Read more
The following should serialize properly the way you want. The clue being [XmlElement(“credentials”)] on the list. I did this by taking your xml, generating a schema (xsd) from it in Visual Studio. Then running xsd.exe on the schema to generate a class. (And some small edits) public class CredentialsSection { public string Username { get; … Read more
In First activity: ArrayList<ContactBean> fileList = new ArrayList<ContactBean>(); Intent intent = new Intent(MainActivity.this, secondActivity.class); intent.putExtra(“FILES_TO_SEND”, fileList); startActivity(intent); In receiver activity: ArrayList<ContactBean> filelist = (ArrayList<ContactBean>)getIntent().getSerializableExtra(“FILES_TO_SEND”);`
Is there any actual need for these classes to implement Serializable? The JPA spec (JSR 220) summarizes it pretty well (the same applies to Hibernate): 2.1 Requirements on the Entity Class (…) If an entity instance is to be passed by value as a detached object (e.g., through a remote interface), the entity class must … Read more
For in-memory use, Parcelable is far, far better than Serializable. I strongly recommend not using Serializable. You can’t use Parcelable for data that will be stored on disk (because it doesn’t have good guarantees about data consistency when things change), however Serializable is slow enough that I would strongly urge not using it there either. … Read more
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 … Read more
You could use DataContractSerializer (but note you can’t use xml attributes – only xml elements): using System; using System.Runtime.Serialization; using System.Xml; [DataContract] class MyObject { public MyObject(Guid id) { this.id = id; } [DataMember(Name=”Id”)] private Guid id; public Guid Id { get {return id;}} } static class Program { static void Main() { var ser … Read more
Technically, I believe the servlet container is allowed to “passivate” the servlet object to disk, in a similar way that EJB session beans can be. So you’re correct to ask the question if your app will fail due to non-serializable fields. In practise, I’ve never heard of a container doing this, so it’s really just … Read more
Yes, you can save your composite object in shared preferences. Let’s say.. Student mStudentObject = new Student(); SharedPreferences appSharedPrefs = PreferenceManager .getDefaultSharedPreferences(this.getApplicationContext()); Editor prefsEditor = appSharedPrefs.edit(); Gson gson = new Gson(); String json = gson.toJson(mStudentObject); prefsEditor.putString(“MyObject”, json); prefsEditor.commit(); ..and now you can retrieve your object as: SharedPreferences appSharedPrefs = PreferenceManager .getDefaultSharedPreferences(this.getApplicationContext()); Gson gson = new … Read more