I have a [serializable] class that I serialize using a binary formatter, send over a network (TCPListener, TCPClient) and then run deserialize on. Every time I get to deserialize I get an outofmemory exception. Does anyone know why this might be happening?
(The class I'm sending is very small)
Thanks,
PM
EDIT: My class is a linked list of one of my other classes, and some methods. I made both Serializable.
Does the class have a serialization constructor (one that takes the SerializationInfo and StreamingContext params)? If so, might there be a bug in the serialization constructor?
(Please provide more details on the class in question.)
Sometimes the serializer and/or deserializer have trouble with cyclic references.
I'd recommend custom serializers & deserializers anyway. It really is beneficial to be able to look at just your code and know what the storage format looks like.
Related
I have an entity class which can change over period of time. As of now, I binary serialization to serialize an object of this class. But if I add a new property to the class, I can't deserialize a stream serialized earlier. I tried if I can use BSON with json.net.
I need to take care of these things:
Memory footprint of serialized data should be low
serialization and deserialization should be fast
Need to provide backward compatibility for data serialized with old entity class structure
One approach I considered is to convert the object to IDictionary before serializing it so that I can set default value to properties that are not matching while deserializing. While this works well, it involves additional step to convert the object to IDictionary.
Has anyone faced this situation? what are the approaches you use?
Actually binary serialization is very flexible. Of course, you can just add [Serializable] attribute to the class and forget about details, but you can also take the full control on serialization by implementing ISerializable interface/by adding methods/attributes which corresponds to the certain steps of serialization/deserialization lifecycle. Considering your question about structure changes, please take a look on the following article.
I have long held the believe that your domain model should not be responsible for serializing itself to XML. I have used the IXmlSerializable interface in the past to control how my objects are serialized but ideally I'd prefer the nuts and bolts of the serialization to live outside the object.
However I've never been able to actually implement this in a clean manner and I was wondering if there was any patterns I was overlooking to make this happen. Basically I want my object model to do it's thing and be oblivious to XML serialization (or any other serialization for that matter) and then handed off to some service that spiders the object and serializes it.
I've tried doing this with extension methods but this falls short when you want to serialize a collection of type object. I've looked at doing it with object wrappers and DTO's that then serialize but then you've got the overhead of maintaining another set of objects and having to create these objects when you want to serialize which again can get messy when you have collections of type object.
The only other thing is using reflection but I'd worry about the processing overheads.
Is there a sane way to do what I'm asking or should I just bite the bullet and make my objects xml aware?
Using the System.Xml.Serialization Attributes is putting the nuts and bolts outside of your code. You are defining metadata and with the exception of optional parameters, no extra code is required. Implementing IXmlSerializable and doing the serialization by hand is error prone and should be avoided. Why? You are defining your data 3 times.
XML Schema
Class
Serialization code
Using attributes, you can scrub step 3.
XML and C# has an impedance mismatch. Like it or not, at some point, you will need to define the serialization to create the right document model.
Arguably, the classes you are serializing should not be performing any work. They are just a data store. Try abstracting your logic away from serialized objects - it may give you a warmer feeling.
Update
If you really, really hate attributes, try using the adapter pattern to serialize your model. The XML code will be in a separate class or assembly and you can work with your model across storage mediums. You will suffer the consequence of having to update the serialization separately when you update your model.
I'm trying to create a function that will save the current state of my application to a file, and another function to load a saved file. Currently, all the information is contained within a single object, which in turn refers to other objects. I recently heard that C# has some built-in classes that help you serialize and deserialize your objects, so I did a little research and learned about DataContracts, mostly from this page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731073.aspx
Most of it works, except for the classes that implement built-in classes. For example, I have an object that inherits System.Windows.DependencyObject, and when I try to serialize it, it complains that my class inherits a class that does not have the DataContract attribute.
It makes sense to me why that would be a problem. When an object is being deserialized, its constructor is not called. If it inherits something that is not serializable, that might leave it in an invalid state.
I was wondering if this was possible: can I somehow tell the deserializer to call the base class's default constructor before deserializing my object? And then I would have to tell the serializer not to freak out.
Can you create a data transer object that has all the properties you want to store, then populate that object with data from the framework object? Mark it as serialized, fire up the serialization class of your choice - and now you have all the info you need. You just need to re-populate the appropriate class after deserialization.
You may want to look into using a binary serializer or xml serializer instead of a data contract serializer for this one. If you're saving it to a file and don't need the file human-readable binary serialization nearly always works.
See Binary Serialization, and in particular the Basic Serialization topic.
Also take a look at the XmlSerializer Class which will sometimes work where a DataContractSerializer doesn't.
.NET provides the JavaScriptSerializer class in the
System.Web.Script.Serialization namespace. (provided in System.Web.Extensions.dll)
It was originally intended to support AJAX web server apps, but the class can be used by any application (client, server, hybrid, anything) that serializes and deserializes .NET classes to JSON. I have a desktop app that captures screenshots and uploads to Facebook, and uses this class to deserialize the response.
would I ever want to look elsewhere for JSON deserialization from within .NET?
If so, why? and where would I Look?
If not, then why does JSON.Net exist? Is it strictly for historical purposes? (ie, because it was created by the community before the JavaScriptSerializer).
In my case there are various reasons that prevent me to use JavaScriptSerializer. Here are some of them.
1) Ugly deserialization when dealing with anonymous types
While the usage is fairly straight forward for serialization:
JavaScriptSerializer serializer = new JavaScriptSerializer();
String json = serializer.Serialize(data);
For deserialization however, there is a minor annoyance in that the deserializer accepts a generic type along with the content:
serializer.Deserialize<T>(String s)
this can be a problem if the type T is not known at compile time and needs to be dynamic. The work around is a bit ugly as I learnt because it uses reflection to create a generic method (but it works)
var result = typeof(JavaScriptSerializer).GetMethod("Deserialize")
.MakeGenericMethod(JsonDataType)
.Invoke(serializer, new object[] { inputContent });
Please note: according to Dave Ward comment on this answer there's a DeserializeObject() that can be used to prevent this.
2) Cannot handle circular references
I have seen this using Entity Framework, Linq to SQL, NHibernate, NetTiers and even when using Castle's proxy.
According to MS Connect the circular reference exception will be raised when a navigable relation is double-sided (can access both sides of the relation), so the first thing to do is disable one side of the relation. The exception will also be thrown when you use 1:1 relations (or 1:0..1 or any relation causing the creation of an EntityReference type property), in this case the exception will be of type System.Data.Metadata.Edm.AssociationType.
The solution to this is to make the serializer ignore the properties of type EntityReference, using an empty implementation of a class deriving from JavaScriptConverter and registering it using the RegisterConverters method of the JavaScriptSerializer object.
3) Useful features that leads to less testable code
A useful feature of the JavaScriptSerializer is that you can also implement a custom JavaScriptConverter and pass that in to JavaScriptSerializer for fine-grained control over the serialization/deserialization. However, for it to be really useful you need to know the types at compile time and have references to those types. This really limits the usefulness of this feature because by referencing those classes your code becomes tightly coupled so you cannot easily use it in something like an MVC filter.
For these reasons I have often ended up using Json.NET.
Hope this helps!
I use the JavaScriptSerializer on a wide variety of scenarios, it never let me down, and never needed to look elsewhere for other solutions... :)
...but i do know that JSON.net has some added values like LINQ to JSON, which i never needed, and nice JSON formatting but as Serializing goes JavaScriptSerializer does the work fine.
It's ok if the answer to this is "it's impossible." I won't be upset. But I'm wondering, in making a game using C#, if there's any way to mimic the functionality of the "save state" feature of console emulators. From what I understand, emulators have it somewhat easy, they just dump the entire contents of the virtualized memory, instruction pointers and all. So they can resume exactly the same way, in the exact same spot in the game code as before. I know I won't be able to resume from the same line of code, but is there any way I can maintain the entire state of the game without manually saving every single variable? I'd like a way that doesn't need to be extended or modified every single time I add something to my game.
I'm guessing that if there is any possible way to do this, it would use a p/invoke...
Well, in C# you can do the same, in principle. It's called serialization. Agreed, it's not the exact same thing as a memory dump but comes close enough.
To mark a class as serializable just add the Serializable attribute to it:
[Serializable]
class GameState
Additional information regarding classes that might change:
If new members are added to a serializable class, they can be tagged with the OptionalField attribute to allow previous versions of the object to be deserialized without error. This attribute affects only deserialization, and prevents the runtime from throwing an exception if a member is missing from the serialized stream. A member can also be marked with the NonSerialized attribute to indicate that it should not be serialized. This will allow the details of those members to be kept secret.
To modify the default deserialization (for example, to automatically initialize a member marked NonSerialized), the class must implement the IDeserializationCallback interface and define the IDeserializationCallback.OnDeserialization method.
Objects may be serialized in binary format for deserialization by other .NET applications. The framework also provides the SoapFormatter and XmlSerializer objects to support serialization in human-readable, cross-platform XML.
—Wikipedia: Serialization, .NET Framework
If you make every single one of your "state" classes Serializable then you can literally serialize the objects to a file. You can then load them all up again from this file when you need to resume.
See ISerializable
I agree with the other posters that making your game state classes Serializable is probably the way you want to go. Others have covered basic serialization; for a high end alternative you could look into NHibernate which will persist objects to a database. You can find some good info on NHibernate at these links:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/database/Nhibernate_Made_Simple.aspx
http://nhibernate.info/doc/burrow/faq