JSON or any other platform neutral serialization is good.Using Serializable means you will only be able to communicate with Java peers really. Using Parcels would be wrong here, even if you are communicating with other Androids: I do not know much about that implementation, but different devices could run different versions of Android, which might completely break it.
In my experience, something human readable makes debugging stuff going over the wire just so much easier, so JSON is great. Ludwig 2008/10/11 Nemat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I have to send data over Http connection after serializing it. > I set the data in JSON object that will be sent via Http connection.Is > converting the data in JSON object a way to serialize it or I need to > have a class which extends Serializable?? > > > On Oct 8, 10:31 pm, hackbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Parcelable is much much more efficient than Serializable, but you > > should NOT use it for storing data to persistent storage as described > > in the Parcel dochttp:// > code.google.com/android/reference/android/os/Parcel.html > > > > Of course how much depends entirely on the objects involved, but a > > 100x difference wouldn't be unexpected. > > > > On Oct 8, 3:18 am, Guillaume Perrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > When passing objects in a Bundle, is a Parcelable more efficient than > > > a Serializable ? How much ? > > > > > On Oct 8, 2:32 am, "Josh Roesslein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > It might be okay to useserializationin services since they would > normally > > > > run for a long period. > > > > Probably the only thing on the Android that would be long lived. > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:26 PM, hackbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On a phone, I would argue there is pretty much no such thing as a > long- > > > > > lived application. > > > > > > > The use of a handheld device is just fundamentally different than a > > > > > desktop. Even the browser, though you may sometimes spend a lot of > > > > > time in it, very often you are quickly popping in and out of it. > Add > > > > > in all of the interruptions (SMS, e-mail, chats, phone calls, etc) > and > > > > > the fact that with such a small screen you can only see one app at > a > > > > > time and with such few resources you can only actually have a few > apps > > > > > running in the background at a time... and startup time is pretty > > > > > important. > > > > > > > Plus, keep in mind that flipping open the keyboard means destroying > > > > > the current activity and starting a new instance of it. As such, > you > > > > > really really don't want to do slow things in Activity.onCreate() > or > > > > > anything it depends on, and would very much be best off avoiding > > > > >serializationthere. You can somewhat mitigate slow startup times > > > > > here by caching data in your process, using the Activity APIs to > > > > > transfer state across instances, etc... but best is to just design > > > > > your app up-front to have a fast startup time, benefiting many > > > > > important interactions the user has with it. > > > > > > > On Oct 7, 5:11 pm, "Josh Roesslein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > For a short lived application startup time would be important. > > > > > > But for a long lived application that isn't restarted often it > isn't as > > > > > > important. > > > > > > I never likedserializationanyways. There is better and faster > ways to > > > > > > persist your application's state to disk. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:54 PM, hackbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Startup is actually one of the most performance critical parts > of an > > > > > > > application, since it directly impacts how quickly the user can > move > > > > > > > to your application from somewhere else, and if that takes a > > > > > > > noticeable amount of time (you really want to keep it < 1 > second) then > > > > > > > they are much less likely to use your app. > > > > > > > > > On Oct 7, 3:33 pm, "Josh Roesslein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yeah I'm not sure how the performance ofserializationis on > the > > > > > Dalvik > > > > > > > VM. > > > > > > > > If you are just usingserializationduring startup/shutdown > speed > > > > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > > > matter too much. > > > > > > > > But if you are loading/unloading objects a lot during the > runtime of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > application, it might be a bit sluggish. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:17 PM, hackbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It does support it, but I would generally recommend against > it > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > Javaserializationis slooooow. > > > > > > > > > > > It's hard to address the original question because there > are > > > > > basically > > > > > > > > > no details. > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, "Josh Roesslein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I believe Android's Java VM fully supports > JavaSerialization. > > > > > > > > > > Trying Googling for "javaserialization" and you should > find > > > > > plenty > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > tutorials > > > > > > > > > > to get you started. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Nemat < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me aboutobjectserializationin Android?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in Advance > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
