本文深入探讨了Java中的序列化机制，重点对比了Serializable和Externalizable接口的区别和使用场景，揭示了如何通过这两种方式实现对象的序列化与反序列化，以及各自的优缺点。
1. In case of Serializable, default serialization process is used. while in case of Externalizable custom Serialization process is used which
is implemented by application.
2. JVM gives call back to
readExternel()
and
writeExternal()
of
java.io.Externalizalbe
interface for restoring and writing objects into persistence.
3. Externalizable interface provides complete control of serialization process to application.
4.
readExternal()
and
writeExternal()
supersede any specific implementation of
writeObject
and
readObject
methods.
T
hough Externalizable provides complete control, it also presents challenges to serialize super type state and take care of default values in
case of
transient variable
and
static variables in Java
. If used correctly Externalizable interface can improve performance of serialization process.
By implementating java.io.Serializable, you get "automatic" serialization capability for objects of your class. No need to implement any other logic, it'll just work. The Java runtime will use reflection to figure out how to marshal and unmarshal your objects.
In earlier version of Java, reflection was very slow, and so serializaing large object graphs (e.g. in client-server RMI applications) was a bit of a performance problem. To handle this situation, the java.io.Externalizable interface was provided, which is like java.io.Serializable but with custom-written mechanisms to perform the marshalling and unmarshalling functions (you need to implement readExternal and writeExternal methods on your class). This gives you the means to get around the reflection performance bottleneck.
In recent versions of Java (1.3 onwards, certainly) the performance of reflection is vastly better than it used to be, and so this is much less of a problem. I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to get a meaningful benefit from Externalizable with a modern JVM.
Also, the built-in Java serialization mechanism isn't the only one, you can get third-party replacements, such as JBoss Serialization, which is considerably quicker, and is a drop-in replacement for the default.
A big downside of Externalizable is that you have to maintain this logic yourself - if you add, remove or change a field in your class, you have to change your writeExternal/readExternal methods to account for it.
In summary, Externalizable is a relic of the Java 1.1 days. There's really no need for it any more
Read more: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2012/01/serializable-externalizable-in-java.html#ixzz2Z6AjeDuf
In earlier version of Java, reflection was very slow, and so serializaing large object graphs (e.g. in client-server RMI applications) was a bit of a performance problem. To handle this situation, the java.io.Externalizable interface was provided, which is like java.io.Serializable but with custom-written mechanisms to perform the marshalling and unmarshalling functions (you need to implement readExternal and writeExternal methods on your class). This gives you the means to get around the reflection performance bottleneck.
In recent versions of Java (1.3 onwards, certainly) the performance of reflection is vastly better than it used to be, and so this is much less of a problem. I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to get a meaningful benefit from Externalizable with a modern JVM.
Also, the built-in Java serialization mechanism isn't the only one, you can get third-party replacements, such as JBoss Serialization, which is considerably quicker, and is a drop-in replacement for the default.
A big downside of Externalizable is that you have to maintain this logic yourself - if you add, remove or change a field in your class, you have to change your writeExternal/readExternal methods to account for it.
In summary, Externalizable is a relic of the Java 1.1 days. There's really no need for it any more
Read more: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2012/01/serializable-externalizable-in-java.html#ixzz2Z6AjeDuf
扫一扫
280
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
