By default, Json.NET ignores the Serializable attribute. However, according to a comment to this answer by Maggie Ying (quoted below because comments are not meant to last), WebAPI overrides that behavior, which causes your output. Json.NET serializer by default set the IgnoreSerializableAttribute to true. In WebAPI, we set that to false. The reason why you … Read more
You just need this one-liner to get Json.NET to ignore the [Serializable] semantics again: ((DefaultContractResolver)config.Formatters.JsonFormatter.SerializerSettings.ContractResolver).IgnoreSerializableAttribute = true; A better solution for you might be to get rid of [Serializable] altogether, stop using BinaryFormatter, and use a different serializer instead to do whatever caching you want to do, like the Json.NET serializer for example.
Write your own encoder and decoder, which can be very simple like return __dict__ e.g. here is a encoder to dump totally recursive tree structure, you can enhance it or use as it is for your own purpose import json class Tree(object): def __init__(self, name, childTrees=None): self.name = name if childTrees is None: childTrees = … 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
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
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
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
Serialization is persisting an object from memory to a sequence of bits, for instance for saving onto the disk. Deserialization is the opposite – reading data from the disk to hydrate/create an object. In the context of your question, it is an interface that if implemented in a class, this class can automatically be serialized … Read more
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
From the javadoc: The serialization runtime associates with each serializable class a version number, called a serialVersionUID, which is used during deserialization to verify that the sender and receiver of a serialized object have loaded classes for that object that are compatible with respect to serialization. If the receiver has loaded a class for the … Read more