I wrote my own networking piece which does serialization based on api that comes with java already. import java.io.Serializable;.
Just implementing this interface allows for that object to be serialized (with some exceptions, like it can’t be a thread). I wanted to know if there was a way I could get core classes such as spatial or ColorRGBM to implement serializable without taking the following approaches.
I could just open the class from the source and implement it myself, but then if I get a new build I would have to redo it for all source code I changed. Plus I shouldn’t be changing the source.
I could make a new class and extend the classes I want to serialize. Such as class MyColorRGBM extends ColorRGBM implements Serialzable. But again that would leave me with a lot of extra overhead.
I just wanted to know if there was another way that makes this process easier, maybe I’ll have to write code to automate the process, but how do I do that?
The other possibility is to have JME by default implementing serializable in the future to allow support for alternate networking pieces.
I’m not using Spidermonkey, I already wrote my own networking layer in which it uses the default serialization method. Meaning just implement the class you want serialized with serializable.
lets say I have my message classes which sends messages
[java]public class Message implements Serializable
{
String hey;
int hey;
}[/java]
this will go through fine because by default objects are already serializable.
if I wanted to do
[java]public class Message implements Serializable
{
String hey;
int hey;
ColorRGBA mycolor;
}[/java]
I will get an exception because ColorRGBA doesnt implement Serializable. I am asking how can I go about making classes in jmonkey use the java.io.Serializable without having to do the things I have listed.
This is more of a general Java question than a jME question; nonetheless - You’d have to wrap it in another object like you first showed - some overhead is involved there, or you change Java source
I can only tell you nto to sue the default serilisation as it is slow as hell, and produces large bloat binary. Not pseakring for spidermonkey, but my own network layer I use uses a 2 byte identifyer and after that the direct bynary values (so if a send a mesage containg a vector3f and a quaternion I send 2+43+44 = 30 bytes) The default serializer was around 100-200 for the same payload.
EmpirePhoenix said:
I can only tell you nto to sue the default serilisation as it is slow as hell, and produces large bloat binary. Not pseakring for spidermonkey, but my own network layer I use uses a 2 byte identifyer and after that the direct bynary values (so if a send a mesage containg a vector3f and a quaternion I send 2+4*3+4*4 = 30 bytes) The default serializer was around 100-200 for the same payload.
Yep, and that is the exact reason why SpiderMonkey doesn't use Java Serializable. SpiderMonkey uses a short identifier as well.
yeah when I was doing my networking piece I read that java by default wasn’t the best with performance, but I also read that I have the option of overriding their send and write methods whenever I wanted to put a better performance piece in. I guess the good news about that is I get to still keep the same structure and can just “plug in” and upgrade.
