• 0

[C#] Serialization of abstract class


Question

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

What benefit do you see of serialising the just the properties of the abstract type? You can infact do this I guess, if you define deserialisation constructors. For instance, we have a type:

public abstract class Person : ISerializable
{
  #region Constructor
  public Person() { }

  protected Person(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
  {
    Forename = info.GetString("forename");
    Surname = info.GetString("surname");
  }
  #endregion

  #region Properties
  public string Forename { get; set; }
  public string Surname { get; set; }
  #endregion

  #region Methods
  public virtual void GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
  {
    info.Add("forenamerename);
    info.Add("surnamername);
  }
  #endregion
}

This type implements the ISerializable interface, and also provides a deserialisation constructor with signature (SerializationInfo, StreamingContext). Obviously we can't instantiate this type, but we could define a type which implements this, and is deserialized:

public class Employee : Person
{
  #region Constructors
  public Employee() { }

  protected Employee(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context) : base(info, context)
  {
    // Additional deserialisation here.
  }
  #endregion

  #region Properties
  public string Department { get; set; }
  #endregion
}

BinaryFormatter formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
Employee emp = (Employee)formatter.Deserialize(<stream>);

The Employee type does't implement any specific serialisation of its own properties, so when serialising, it will only serialise the properties of the base type. We could of course serialise our local properties too:

public class Employee : Person
{
  #region Constructors
  public Employee() { }

  protected Employee(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context) : base(info, context)
  {
    Department = info.GetString("department");
  }
  #endregion

  #region Properties
  public string Department { get; set; }
  #endregion

  #region Methods
  public override void GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
  {
    base.GetObjectData(info, context);
    info.Add("department }
  #endregion
}

The net result is, although the data of the abstract type is serialised, its actually the derived type that is serialised in the stream.

Edited by Antaris
Removed incorrect logic.
  • 0
  On 24/02/2010 at 17:45, Antaris said:

What benefit do you see of serialising the just the properties of the abstract type? You can infact do this I guess, if you define deserialisation constructors. For instance, we have a type:

public abstract class Person : ISerializable
{
  #region Constructor
  public Person() { }

  protected Person(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
  {
    Forename = info.GetString("forename");
    Surname = info.GetString("surname");
  }
  #endregion

  #region Properties
  public string Forename { get; set; }
  public string Surname { get; set; }
  #endregion

  #region Methods
  public virtual void GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
  {
    info.AddValue("forename", Forename);
    info.AddValue("surname", Surname);
  }
  #endregion
}

This type implements the ISerializable interface, and also provides a deserialisation constructor with signature (SerializationInfo, StreamingContext). Obviously we can't instantiate this type, but we could define a type which implements this, and is deserialized:

public class Employee : Person
{
  #region Constructors
  public Employee() { }

  protected Employee(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context) : base(info, context)
  {
    // Additional deserialisation here.
  }
  #endregion

  #region Properties
  public string Department { get; set; }
  #endregion
}

BinaryFormatter formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
Employee emp = (Employee)formatter.Deserialize(<stream>);

The Employee type does't implement any specific serialisation of its own properties, so when serialising, it will only serialise the properties of the base type. We could of course serialise our local properties too:

public class Employee : Person
{
  #region Constructors
  public Employee() { }

  protected Employee(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context) : base(info, context)
  {
    Department = info.GetString("department");
  }
  #endregion

  #region Properties
  public string Department { get; set; }
  #endregion

  #region Methods
  public override void GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
  {
    base.GetObjectData(info, context);
    info.AddValue("department");
  }
  #endregion
}

The net result is, although the data of the abstract type is serialised, its actually the derived type that is serialised in the stream. If I am following what I think you want to do, you want something like this:

Person person = (Person)formatter.Deserialize(<stream>);

I am not sure if that would work, simply because the Person type cannot be instantiated, because it is abstract. And doing this:

Person person = (Person)(Employee)formatter.Deserialize(<stream>);

... doesn't provide the clean separation of concerns you want.

Well, the reason for using an abstract class is because I have a composite model in my program so I have a collection of some types that implement an interface so I can't serialize the collection. I want the collection to have interface because I want it to be as generic as possible. In the end I settled for an abstract class that implements a custom interface and ISerializable. When I serialize the class I serialize it as the abtrast type and when deserialize I cast it to my custom interface.

About what you said.To further clarify things, you can deserialize derived classes from an abtrast type,even if you serialized it as the abstrast class, because when you serialize to a binary format it also adds metadata to the file so it knows the real type of the serialized class and so it can call the appropiate constructor. I've tested and confirmed this after quite some research. You can even open the file in notepad and you can see some readable things :).

  • 0
  Quote
About what you said.To further clarify things, you can deserialize derived classes from an abtrast type,even if you serialized it as the abstrast class, because when you serialize to a binary format it also adds metadata to the file so it knows the real type of the serialized class and so it can call the appropiate constructor. I've tested and confirmed this after quite some research. You can even open the file in notepad and you can see some readable things

But if you have an instance of an abstract type, its actually an instance of a derived type, so what gets serialised is the derived type, no? What I mean is, when you call any of the methods (Serialize, Deserialize), at no point do you express the type, e.g. typeof(Person) [as per my example]. Internaly if the BinaryFormatter makes a call to GetType(), the derived type will be returned, not the abstract type?

  • 0
  On 24/02/2010 at 19:46, Antaris said:

But if you have an instance of an abstract type, its actually an instance of a derived type, so what gets serialised is the derived type, no? What I mean is, when you call any of the methods (Serialize, Deserialize), at no point do you express the type, e.g. typeof(Person) [as per my example]. Internaly if the BinaryFormatter makes a call to GetType(), the derived type will be returned, not the abstract type?

Well,when I serialize the abstract classes, i use typeof(List<abstract class name>) . Also I don't serialize the original List<myinterface> but create a separate list and cast the members to the abstract type. This is probably a very bad practive and completely useless in real programming but it's nice for an exercise. So i serialize the entire collection, like this serialization_info_instace.add("tag",list<abstract_type_name>_instancealize you don't use typeof, but only when you deserialize. Collections with serializable members are also serializable.

I even created a special class to check the serialization of abstract classes. In my class I have an derived class instance member explicitly declared as derived, so it includes the entire type ierarchy when I serialize,. When I deserialize i use typeof(abstract class) with the GetValue method and not GetString as in the example.I even tried declaring the derived class instance as an abstract class member and it still worked so it's the same as the previous case. So I guess it doesn't matter how you serialize/deserialize your classes because it will always include the full type ierarchy when serializing. As long as you deserialize to something that is in the type ierarchy it will work. But only with classes. I tried to serialize something as an interface and I got an exception although I can deserialize something as an interface using typeof(myinterfacename) as a paramenter to the GetValue method.

Hope I was clear enough and didn't make any mistakes :happy: .

  • 0

Well, I think I'm getting confused over exactly what you want to achieve. Using my example from before, if I serialise a derived type, and then deserialise it, we can see that it is actually the derived type that is deserialised before we cast it back to the abstract type:

post-92970-12670880091169_thumb.png

In the same sense, I have an example type which implements an abstract collection: List<Person> (read: not List<Employee>):

[Serializable]
public class PeopleSet : ISerializable
{
    #region Constructors
    public PeopleSet()
    {
        People = new List&lt;Person&gt;();
    }

    protected PeopleSet(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
    {
        People = (List&lt;Person&gt;)info.GetValue("list", typeof(List&lt;Person&gt;));
    }
    #endregion

    #region Properties
    public List&lt;Person&gt; People { get; private set; }
    #endregion

    #region Methods
    public void GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
    {
        info.AddValue("list", People);
    }
    #endregion
}

Now, if we are explicitly using typeof(List<Person>) when adding the list to the SerializationInfo, but when we deserialise the PeopleSet type, the list is deserialised and cast back to List<Person>, but the item contained is still the derived type I added before:

post-92970-12670882362371_thumb.png

The thing I think you will fall into problems with, is if you are trying to deserialise purely as the abstract type, where the derived type is not available. I.e., you have a library with your abstract type, which is used throughout, but the derived type is only available during serialisation. This wouldn't work, as when you attempt to deserialise when the derived type is not available, an Exception will be thrown.

  • 0
  On 25/02/2010 at 09:00, Antaris said:

Well, I think I'm getting confused over exactly what you want to achieve. Using my example from before, if I serialise a derived type, and then deserialise it, we can see that it is actually the derived type that is deserialised before we cast it back to the abstract type:

post-92970-12670880091169_thumb.png

In the same sense, I have an example type which implements an abstract collection: List<Person> (read: not List<Employee>):

[Serializable]
public class PeopleSet : ISerializable
{
    #region Constructors
    public PeopleSet()
    {
        People = new List&lt;Person&gt;();
    }

    protected PeopleSet(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
    {
        People = (List&lt;Person&gt;)info.GetValue("list", typeof(List&lt;Person&gt;));
    }
    #endregion

    #region Properties
    public List&lt;Person&gt; People { get; private set; }
    #endregion

    #region Methods
    public void GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
    {
        info.AddValue("list", People);
    }
    #endregion
}

Now, if we are explicitly using typeof(List<Person>) when adding the list to the SerializationInfo, but when we deserialise the PeopleSet type, the list is deserialised and cast back to List<Person>, but the item contained is still the derived type I added before:

post-92970-12670882362371_thumb.png

The thing I think you will fall into problems with, is if you are trying to deserialise purely as the abstract type, where the derived type is not available. I.e., you have a library with your abstract type, which is used throughout, but the derived type is only available during serialisation. This wouldn't work, as when you attempt to deserialise when the derived type is not available, an Exception will be thrown.

Sorry for making such a mess out this. I managed to serialize the classes just as I wanted though as you pointed I can't always do like this because I don't always have acces to the type. I believe this is important to remember because changing this requires a lot of code rewriting. So when making a serious application you need to know about this from the start. I still needed some clarifications but now I pretty much understand the concept .

  • 0

Don't worry about it, it's all the fun of development. If you want to truly break the dependancy on the derived type, you could implement some sort of proxy object which implements your abstract class or interface. You won't be able to use binary serialisation, but I can't see any reason why you could use xml serialisation and custom reconstruction.

  • 0
  On 26/02/2010 at 08:38, Antaris said:

Don't worry about it, it's all the fun of development. If you want to truly break the dependancy on the derived type, you could implement some sort of proxy object which implements your abstract class or interface. You won't be able to use binary serialisation, but I can't see any reason why you could use xml serialisation and custom reconstruction.

I did break dependency in a way. I have a core assembly in which I have defined my interfaces and abstract types. I reference that assembly in my project and build on top of it. And in my program I inspect a folder called plugins for additional assemblies. It inspecs each assembly for derived types from my interfaces and abstract classes and loads them into a list. I use that list to create objects of those types. My convention is that every derived class from my abstract classes and interfaces should have a constructor that takes certain parameters so that I can instantiate those classes for sure so I can add new objects of those custom types to my application from it's GUI. I also use that list of custom types to deserialize my objects from binary files. I need to make a custom binder and set it to the formatter. The custom binder searches the list of types for the desired type.

And not just that, I was playing with nested classes. Each nested class if derived from another abstract attribute class, represents an attribute that I can set to object of those types or types derived from it. I don't implement interfaces directly, but rather create an abstract class that maps the methods and properties. And I use that class to derive from it. So it's very easy to add new attributes to my classes. (not attributes that you put in [] to mark the code with special properties, but rather custom ones that are completely unrelated to those). So my main abstract class has a property that gets or sets a list of attributes which also exists in the interface that it implements. But also it has come concrete classes that denote general attributes that apply to all the classes derived from it. I really like how this makes things really logical and it's very easy to extend and customize my program with additional assemblies. It's really amazing what you can do with .net.

I researched and came with another idea, to add support for custom sources that contain actual code. It will probably have another folder called sources. I will compile them at runtime and inspect them for my desired types. This will make adding custom content to my application even easier because you won't even need to compile the code because my application will do it for you.

This is imo one of the best parts of programming :D .

  • 0

There are also SerializationSurrogates which can be used to serialize instances of classes (sealed, perhaps, or otherwise unmodifiable) that are not normally serializable. Of course, you only have access to the public members in this situation, unless of course you use reflection.

I had to do this because in .net 1.1 Microsoft left 3 Exception classes without the ISerializable interface.

Key things to take away here:

1) If B is instance of A -> List<B> is instance of List<A>

2) You cannot have an instance of an abstract type

3) You don't need to downcast.

public abstract class A {}
public class B : A{}

.... 
public A MakeA() { return new B(); }
public List&lt;A&gt; MakeAs() { return new List&lt;B&gt;(); }

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I have two Tab S9 FEs and two Tab A9+ tablets. While the Tab A9+ is not as powerful as the Tab S9 FE, I like the much cheaper Tab A9+ better. It has a slightly more Landscapish display for those who use the Landscape mode. I haven't noticed much difference in the speakers. The S9 FE does better on battery drainage at around 7% an hour vs 9% an hour for the Tab A9+. I don't use Fast Charging because it is not good for the battery and I haven't really compared the charge time between the two. One thing for sure is the Tab A9+ does a lot better at handling memory under Android 15 UI 7 than it did under Android 14, UI 6.1. The Tab A10+ has yet to be released and as I understand it, it has major chipset and charging upgrades. It expected to be released late this summer or early fall, but with all Samsung hardware releases, I imagine this one will be same where the U.S. is not among the early markets to see a new device.
    • As such, about 30,000 government sector computers would be switching by 2027 or so. I have been there and done it though probably not with as many as 30,000 computers. i worked on a Bank of America conversion project and it was a mess, a complete mess. Computer system conversions are never as easy as they sound in the media or even the Corporate Boardroom or Government high-up offfices. One may ask, what MIcrosoft hardware and sofware the government of Denmark is using in addition to desktop computers and Office?. One thing for sure. We know that they aren't using Windows 10 Mobile.
    • WTF? I can't believe you are surprised it's not an option or it should be. 
    • Yes, if the PCs aren’t upgraded, they’ll lack features like TPM and remain vulnerable to driver and hardware-level exploits. That includes CPU flaws, RAM vulnerabilities, boot and BIOS attacks, and so on. Realistically, there should have been a steady programme of hardware refreshes rather than allowing systems to age well past their practical and secure lifespan. Are we seriously entertaining the idea of running Linux on machines that are over a decade old as a long-term solution instead of upgrading? Would you entrust your financial data or medical records to a box from the early 2000s, with Windows XP removed and Linux installed in its place? Performance degradation is not just an inconvenience. It affects productivity. Slow machines cost time, and time costs money. Security flaws do too. Hardware and software upgrades should be part of a rolling, responsible IT strategy. They should not be treated as an afterthought. This kind of complacency is precisely the issue we’ve seen before. Just look at how that played out in the UK. We readily replace construction tools such as drills, saws, and other equipment on a regular basis, and many of those cost more than a standard desktop PC. Yet when it comes to computers, we’re still stuck in the mindset of "if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it." Just because something powers on doesn’t mean it is fit for purpose. The horse and cart did the job at one point too, but that didn’t mean it was wise to stick with it when something better came along.
    • Freshly released Samsung Galaxy Tab S10 FE is already discounted by Fiza Ali The Samsung Galaxy Tab S10 FE is already available at a discount, just two months after its debut, so you may want to check it out. The device is powered by the Samsung Exynos 1580 processor and equipped with 12GB of RAM and 256GB of internal storage, which can be expanded by up to 1TB via microSD. It features a 10.9‑inch LCD display with a resolution of 2,304 x 1,440 pixels and a 90 Hz refresh rate. Photography and video calls are handled by a 13MP rear camera and a 12MP ultra‑wide front‑facing camera. The device further includes dual AKG‑tuned speakers for immersive audio. The Galaxy Tab S10 FE offers Sub‑6 5G, dual‑band Wi‑Fi 6 with Wi‑Fi Direct support, and Bluetooth 5.3 for low‑latency wireless connections. Moreover, it incorporates S Pen functionality with handwriting assist, a Circle to Search feature for instant Google look‑ups, and Math Solver for converting handwritten equations into editable text and step‑by‑step solutions. The tablet comes pre‑loaded with a suite of creative and productivity apps, including LumaFusion, GoodNotes, Clip Studio Paint, Noteshelf, Sketchbook and PicsArt. The Galaxy Tab S10 FE is water‑resistant, safeguarding against spills, splashes, and brief immersion, and includes a dedicated AI hot‑key on its keyboard for quick access to on‑device artificial intelligence tools. Finally, the tablet houses an 8,000 mAh lithium‑ion battery (29.95Wh) that is said to deliver up to 20 hours of continuous use and supports Super Fast Charging. Samsung Galaxy Tab S10 FE: $519.99 (Amazon US) 9% off This Amazon deal is US-specific and not available in other regions unless specified. If you don't like it or want to look at more options, check out the Amazon US deals page here. Get Prime (SNAP), Prime Video, Audible Plus or Kindle / Music Unlimited. Free for 30 days. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Explorer
      Case_f went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Conversation Starter
      Jamie Smith earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      NeoToad777 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      JoeV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      VAT Services in UAE earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      549
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      240
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      160
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      147
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      112
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!