# Question about Val serialization **URL:** \ **Category:** Zeek\ **Created:** [July 9, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/question-about-val-serialization/536 "2004-07-09T18:34:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Christian\_Kreibich3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@Christian\_Kreibich3](https://community.zeek.org/u/Christian_Kreibich3)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/question-about-val-serialization/536/1 "2004-07-09T18:34:05Z")
Master Robin, I have a question about the serialization of vals (when serializing an event call, for example). A bit of background: yesterday looked at support for sending/receiving records in Broccoli. I got receiving records working fairly quickly, and noticed that the serialization protocol currently insists on sending the full serialized type of the val it is sending (RemoteSerializer.cc, around 126):   loop\_over\_list(\*args, i) (\*args)[i]-\>Serialize(this, true, info);                                                        ^^^^ calling   bool Val::Serialize(Serializer\* s,                       bool save\_type,                       const SerialInfo& info) const; My question is, why is it necessary to send the full type details along with the val, and not just an identifier of the type? It seems to me that since types aren't really first-class data structures in the Bro language (ie. no reflection etc) the remote Bro won't be able to do much with the val if the script doesn't know the type already anyway? I know the serialization caching mechanism you're using to stop sending types repeatedly, but why is it \*ever\* necessary to send a type? Clearly you had a reason in mind ... I'm of course asking because ideally in Broccoli I'd like to be able to send a record val just by saying what type of record it is and then just send the list of values stored in the record. So, is there any chance that sending the type along will be optional in the new serialization protocol? Thanks, Christian. ---
**Author:** ![robin](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/community.zeek.org/robin/32/599_2.png) [@robin](https://community.zeek.org/u/robin)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 9:44am UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/question-about-val-serialization/536/2 "2004-07-13T09:44:53Z")
> My question is, why is it necessary to send the full type details along > with the val, and not just an identifier of the type? It seems to me There are two main reasons: - there isn't any direct assocation between types and identifiers; while for a given id you can see whether it's a type, it doesn't work the other way round: a type does not need to have a name (and even if it has, it may be hard to get access to it). - the value serialization is part of the larger picture which is serializing a full Bro configuration. In this context a certain type does not need to be known on the receiving side. > So, is there any chance that sending the type along will be optional in > the new serialization protocol? Actually, I've now completely removed the possibility to send a value w/o a type (as you have seen in the old code it was possible given that the receiving side could deduce the type somehow). Given the caching this works pretty good and makes things considerably cleaner. On the other hand, I can very well imagine a format in which, alternatively, a type can be specified by a string (e.g. which would then be looked up in the global ID space. Bro would probably not sent something like this itself but receiving it from Broccolli should be easy. So, the answer is yes. I'll add it. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Kreibich3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@Christian\_Kreibich3](https://community.zeek.org/u/Christian_Kreibich3)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/question-about-val-serialization/536/3 "2004-07-13T17:38:16Z")
[snipp!] > On the other hand, I can very well imagine a format in which, > alternatively, a type can be specified by a string (e.g. which would > then be looked up in the global ID space. Bro would probably not > sent something like this itself but receiving it from Broccolli > should be easy. So, the answer is yes. I'll add it. Okay great but don't add it as special treatment just for Broccoli! That'd make me feel bad 🙂 Thanks for the details, Christian. ---
**Author:** ![user34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e274bd/32.png) [@user34](https://community.zeek.org/u/user34)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2004, 3:00am UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/question-about-val-serialization/536/4 "2004-07-19T03:00:15Z")
Hi,Robin For some reason,I want to get the MAC address info in the policy file,can U tell me how? Regards! ---
**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/zeek/original/1X/f09d732bc2cc7c7cc7e35db67cf4e1d5233ce7a7.png) [@system](https://community.zeek.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2022, 3:37pm UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/question-about-val-serialization/536/5 "2022-05-06T15:37:04Z")