Do class changes like field addition or removal maintain Serializable's backward compatibility?

Question

I have a question about Java serialization in scenarios where you may need to modify your serializable class and maintain backward compatibility.

I come from deep C# experience, so please allow me to compare Java with .NET.

In my Java scenario, I need to serialize an object with Java's runtime serialization mechanism, and store the binary data in permanent storage to reuse the objects in future. The problem is that, in the future, classes may be subject to changes. Fields may be added or removed.

I don't know Java serialization in the deep, except for this fantastic article about how not to program in Java when dealing with serialization. As I imagine(d), the serialVersionUID plays a key role in Java serialization, and this is where I need your help.

Apart from the article's example (I know it's bad coding), shall that field not be modified when Eclipse asks to update it after I modified the class?

I remember from the .NET world that when I add new fields I must add the [OptionalField]Attribute to the field to get the backward compatibility, so CLR won't require it in old serialized data. Also, when I need to deprecate a field I must only remove the public methods and not the private fields.

What are the guidelines for best serialization?

Thank you.

[Add] Here is an example. Suppose I have class Foo

public class Foo {
    private String bar;
}

Then I change to:

public class Foo {
    private String bar;
    private Integer eggs;
}

Is compatibility broken between these two version? If I deserialize an "oldFoo" when I have the "newFoo" compiled, does eggs equals null or is an exception thrown? I prefer the first, obviously!!

possible duplicate of [What changes can make serialized class versions incompatible?](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4053359/what-changes-can-make-serialized-class-versions-incompatible) this has more upvotes, but the other is more to the point IMHO — Ciro Santilli OurBigBook.com, May 02 '15 at 18:26
Check out following links : - [Is java object serialization compatible between 1.5 and 1.6](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/152757/is-java-object-serialization-compatible-between-1-5-and-1-6) - [.NET to Java serialization/deserialization compatibility](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1303792/net-to-java-serialization-deserialization-compatibility) - [Java Serialization 1.4 vs 1.6](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/318707/java-serialization-1-4-vs-1-6) - [Serialization FAQ](http://www.jguru.com/faq/core-java-technology/serialization) — Saurabh Gokhale, Jun 16 '11 at 15:47

score 11 · Accepted Answer · answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:14

Let's say you have a class MyClass and you want to ensure serialization compatibility going forward, or at least make sure that you don't change its serialized form unintentionally. You can use Verify.assertSerializedForm() from GS Collections test utilities in most cases.

Start by writing a test that asserts that your class has a serialVersionUID of 0L and has a serial form that's the empty string.

@Test
public void serialized_form()
{
  Verify.assertSerializedForm(
    0L,
    "",
    new MyClass());
}

Run the test. It will fail since the String represents a Base64 encoding and is never empty.

org.junit.ComparisonFailure: Serialization was broken. <Click to see difference>

When you click to see the difference, you'll see the actual Base64 encoding. Paste it inside the empty string.

@Test
public void serialized_form()
{
  Verify.assertSerializedForm(
    0L,
    "rO0ABXNyAC9jYXJhbWVsa2F0YS5zaHVrbmlfZ29lbHZhLkV4ZXJjaXNlOVRlc3QkTXlDbGFzc56U\n"
      + "hVp0q+1aAgAAeHA=",
    new MyClass());
}

Re-run the test. It's likely to fail again with an error message like this.

java.lang.AssertionError: serialVersionUID's differ expected:<0> but was:<-7019839295612785318>

Paste the new serialVersionUID into the test in place of 0L.

@Test
public void serialized_form()
{
  Verify.assertSerializedForm(
    -7019839295612785318L,
    "rO0ABXNyAC9jYXJhbWVsa2F0YS5zaHVrbmlfZ29lbHZhLkV4ZXJjaXNlOVRlc3QkTXlDbGFzc56U\n"
      + "hVp0q+1aAgAAeHA=",
    new MyClass());
}

The test will now pass until you change the serialized form. If you break the test (change the serialized form) by accident, the first thing to do is check that you've specified the serialVerionUID in the Serializable class. If you leave it out, the JVM generates it for you and it's quite brittle.

public class MyClass implements Serializable
{
  private static final long serialVersionUID = -7019839295612785318L;
}

If the test is still broken, you can try to restore the serialized form by marking new fields as transient, taking full control over the serialized form using writeObject(), etc.

If the test is still broken, you have to decide whether to find and revert your changes which broke serialization or treat your changes as an intentional change to the serialized form.

When you change the serialized form on purpose, you'll need to update the Base64 String to get the test to pass. When you do, it's crucial that you change the serialVersionUID at the same time. It doesn't matter what number you choose, as long as it's a number you've never used for the class before. The convention is to change it to 2L, then 3L, etc. If you're starting from a randomly generated serialVersionUID (like -7019839295612785318L in the example), you should still bump the number to 2L because it's still the 2nd version of the serialized form.

Note: I am a developer on GS collections.

Emil · Answer 2 · 2011-06-16T15:52:44.823

2

It's best not to use serialization when you need to keep your data for long period of time.Try using a database or protocol buffer (Protocol Buffers are a way of encoding structured data in an efficient yet extensible format).

edited Jun 16 '11 at 15:52

answered Jun 16 '11 at 15:47

Emil

13,577
18
69
108

In some cases you don't always have control about someone else code as to why they are not making use of db or something else – cp5 Nov 13 '16 at 11:54

score 2 · Answer 3 · answered Jun 16 '11 at 15:47

Java's native serialization support is mainly useful for short term storage or transmission via a network, so instances of an application can communicate with little effort. If you're after longer term storage, I'd suggest you have a look at some XML serialization technique like JAXB.

score 2 · Answer 4 · answered Jun 16 '11 at 16:33

2

If you want to manage the serialized version of the class, you should implement interface Externalizable and specify how to serialize and deserialize the state of your class. This way, the serialized state can be simpler than the "real" state. For example, a TreeMap object has a state that is a red-black tree, while the serialized version is just a list of key-values (and the tree is re-created when the object is deserialized).

However, if your class is simple and it only has some optional fields, you can use the keyword "transient" and make the default serialization ignore it. For example:

public class Foo {
    private String bar;
    private transient Integer eggs;
}

answered Jun 16 '11 at 16:33

Matteo

1,367
7
25

No, you don't actually catch the problem. I need eggs to be serialized in future versions. But if I need to serialize an old version that is without eggs, I need to avoid an exception. In C# I get the exception, but I read that in Java I just get eggs null, and that is OK – usr-local-ΕΨΗΕΛΩΝ Jun 16 '11 at 16:57
Ok, I missed that you need eggs to be serialized in future versions :) – Matteo Jun 16 '11 at 17:07

score 1 · Answer 5 · answered Jun 16 '11 at 15:53

Unfortunately I do not have a deep knowledge of C# but based on your words I can conclude that Java serialization is weaker. Field serialVersionUID is optional and can help only if you changed the class binary signature but have not changed the serializable fields. If you changed the fields you cannot read previously serialized object.

The only workaround is to implement your own searilzation mechanism. Java allows this. You have to implement your own readObject() and writeObject() methods. These methods should be smart enough to support backwards compatibility.

Please see javadoc of java.io.Serializable for more details.

In C#, when I deserialize a blob that matches an old version of the class missing new attributes, those marked with OptionalField, these new fields are set to null, and that is what I want to do in Java. When I change the binary signature of the class, Eclipse asks me to update the SerialVersion — usr-local-ΕΨΗΕΛΩΝ, Jun 16 '11 at 16:06

score 0 · Answer 6 · answered Jun 16 '11 at 15:56

If you set the serialVersionUID to a constant (let's say 1) then you can freely add new fields without breaking anything. By leaving the serialVersionUID the same between versions, you are telling the serialization algorithm that you know that the classes are compatible.

Do class changes like field addition or removal maintain Serializable's backward compatibility?

6 Answers6

Linked