We don’t need it if we’re implementing Serializable. So why this difference? How does it relate to the actual mechanism of Serialization?
We don’t need it if we’re implementing Serializable. So why this difference? How does
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
We don’t need it if we’re implementing Serializable. So why this difference? How does it relate to the actual mechanism of Serialization?
A thorough explanation (although the grammar of the article might be improved) can be found on http://www.jusfortechies.com/java/core-java/externalization.php . The short answer, for future reference in case the linked page goes away:
Externalizable is an interface extending Serializable. Contrary to Serializable, though, objects are not restored by just reading the serialized bytestream, but the public constructor is called and only once the object is thus created, its state is restored. This makes restoring more efficient.
Edit: See also What is the difference between Serializable and Externalizable in Java? .