Why do transfer objects need to implement Serializable?

java serialization data-transfer-objects
sma picture sma · Mar 16, 2010 · Viewed 11k times · Source

I realized today that I have blindly just followed this requirement for years without ever really asking why. Today, I ran across a NotSerializableException with a model object I created from scratch and I realized enough is enough.

I was told this was because of session replication between load-balanced servers, but I know I've seen other objects at session scope that do not implement Serializable. Is this the real reason?

Answer

Preet Sangha picture Preet Sangha · Mar 16, 2010

Because in order to be transferred across a wire they need to be serialisable to a form that can be put on the wire.

Like binary, or xml, Json, or simillar

There's more info here... Should any domain object, not be serializable?

Related questions

What is a serialVersionUID and why should I use it?

Eclipse issues warnings when a serialVersionUID is missing. The serializable class Foo does not declare a static final serialVersionUID field of type long What is serialVersionUID and why is it important? Please show an example where missing serialVersionUID will cause …

Read More
Convert a JSON string to object in Java ME?

Is there a way in Java/J2ME to convert a string, such as: {name:"MyNode", width:200, height:100} to an internal Object representation of the same, in one line of code? Because the current method is too tedious: Object n = …

Read More
Java Serializable Object to Byte Array

Let's say I have a serializable class AppMessage. I would like to transmit it as byte[] over sockets to another machine where it is rebuilt from the bytes received. How could I achieve this?

Read More