Talk:Serialization

...to transmit it across a network connection link, either in binary form, or in some human-readable text format such as XML.

In my opinion this should be changed as any communication using a network link is ultimately done in binary form and only after having been transmitted is, if necessary, re-converted into it's original source-format for example XML. The current wording could give the false impression that XML can be sent over a network as is; which is not possible. In the first sentence:

into a sequence of bits

should be

into a sequence of bytes

The bytes vs bits I definitely agree with. The first part, I'm not sure. While everything is ultimately dealt with in binary, it's useful to refer to things being transferred as XML (or some other format) :from a high level perspective. Everything is binary at the lowest level, formats like XML just imply that the binary data is structured in a specific way. Usually when one refers to binary files it :implies a lack of this type of formatting. There may be a better way to phrase it, honestly I think taking out the part about binary might clear it up. The way it's written does sort of imply that XML :is an alternative to binary, rather than a specific encoding. Broswald (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

For this revision, does Wikipedia allow this type of advertisement ?

This is just a question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.56.245.172 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of removing it, this is not related enough to the subject and there is an open source alternative to this exact library that's not even mentioned. I will remove it, if anyone thinks this ad is justified please argue below. DanyX 17:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The "C++ Middleware" reference now added to C++ section is also pure advertisement. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.1.237 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to add a paragraph (in the Uses section) about the relationship between serialization and differential execution. I hope nobody objects too much. I think differential execution is a technique that every programmer should have in their toolkit and know when to use it. Basically, the idea is that whenever a simple, structured procedure executes, it goes through a series of decision points. If it makes a record (by serializing) of these decision points, it can later replicate the path it took (by deserializing). If it does this simultaneously with another execution, it can tell how it is differing from its prior execution. It can also serialize/deserialize arbitrary data along the way and see how that has changed. If the data being serialized/deserialized are the properties of remote objects, such as controls in a user interface, those objects can be updated incrementally. For a trivial cost in performance, the benefit is a major reduction in source code. MikeDunlavey (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the word in IBM manuals about architecture, serialization was a step taken for using semaphores and inter-process communication. It ensures integrity of data that more than one processor uses. For example, before data from a buffer in RAM was used by the I/O channels, the CPU would execute a serializing operation--buffer flush, basically. The article doesn't contradict that idea. It seems to be about pretty much the same thing. BrewJay (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not the main concern in the examples, but a stream must always be closed inside a final clause. Also, the main method should throw the exception instead of ignoring it...

193.167.3.32 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why the "Human-readable serialization" section goes from describing serialization to "Encoding"? Sounds like Serialization is equal to encoding according to this section, as in "Human-readable encoding". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.7.52 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains too many examples, and most of them are a lot more verbose than necessary. We don't need examples for every language that supports some form of serialization (WP is not a manual), and we don't need an example that spans over several files. Any comments before I go ahead and trim that section? – Adrianwn (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all examples because they don't really add to the understanding of serialization, and Wikipedia is not a programming cookbook. Additionally, I removed advertising and all links for various libraries. If anything, such links belong in the External links section or in a separate "Comparison of serialization libraries" article. – Adrianwn (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term

The text uses both terms without explaining if one or both are correct. Does anyone know? Fabiovh (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "deserialize" is the correct term. The article uses it only for PHP, where the deserialization function is called "unserialize", and for external links, where the title uses this word. – Adrianwn (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a short but good description of the general concept of serialization with references to related topics instead of endless code examples. Description of the underlying theory (

Why not including the open source boost::serialize library ? It provides serialization in text, binary or xml archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erekose64 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Author of C++ middleware is using Wikipedia to promote his own (little-used) product. He should not be allowed to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.220.90 (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A popular form of serialization for JavaScript is JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). Full details of JSON are available at http://www.json.org/.

Many languages are capable of handling JSON serialised data.

RQuadling (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the comment regarding JSON (which I agree, is quite popular today), a derived "open" serializations standard named BSON seems to be catching on. It is effectively a binary version of JSON, still a bit more verbose than some serialization methods, but is open and (mostly) directly convertable into JSON. The MongoDB project uses this as its native data storage format.

Perhaps a section on "open" vs. closed/proprietary serialization methods would be useful.

see: http://bsonspec.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomhauer (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second link in External links, http://www.studentacad.com/post/2009/11/26/aspnet-Callback-technique-using-csharp.aspx, results in this warning in Firefox 3.6:

"Reported Attack Page! This web page at www.studentacad.com has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system. Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners. "

--Mortense (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be mostly examples of serialisation, in the form of one or two line statements. At one point it even seems to devlove into what appears to be a direct debate between two or more contributors (Why not serialize everything? under the Java section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.234.102 (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I had a nasty example of this with some student's code that used Swing classes that were "provided" serializable. "

Please fix :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.26.158 (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to mention standard OSS serialization projects such as Apache Avro, Apache Thrift and Google Protocol Buffers which permit serialization in complex systems using multiple programming languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Buffers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Thrift

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Avro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.48.5 (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I would like to complete the merge with the

@

^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, I've never merged an article before, but I'll give it a shot.GBMorris (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I confess that I was getting impatient, so went ahead and completed the merge. Feel free to review, edit, correct, tidy up, etc. Klbrain (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Serialization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.microsoft.com/kb/301116/en-us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070122194723/http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/serialization/index.html to http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/serialization/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the justification for the tag at the top of this article that says it "reads like a debate" rather than an encyclopedia article. Can anyone point out examples of this? This article seems very well written and well referenced. The fact that there is a Disadvantages section is not a bad thing, most technical articles could use such a section. If no one can explain the reason for this tag in a few days I'm going to remove it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]