Is it possible to hide a class' data member from client applications but still serialize with XmlSerializer?
The context is that I'm getting an address in pieces but need to concatenate many of those pieces into a single string before serializing the object to XML and passing it along to something else.
The address class is in turn part of a larger class so simply inheriting and adding this bit is more complicated were it not nested and my need isn't great enough to warrant writing a custom serializer.
Sample:
[DataContract]
public class Address
{
[DataMember()]
public string City
[DataMember()]
public string State
[DataMember()]
public string StreetDirection
[DataMember()]
public string StreetName
[DataMember()]
public string StreetNumber
[DataMember()]
public string StreetSuffix
[DataMember()]
public string Unit
[DataMember()]
public string Zip
[IgnoreDataMember()]
[Serializable]
public string AddressLine1
}
Basically, I want to have a placeholder (AddressLine1) where I can put the concatenation of StreetXXX properties before passing along (and it's already if the receiver sees the individual pieces).
Edit - add example
Input would be something like:
<Address>
<StreetNumber>123</StreetNumber>
<StreetDirection>S.</StreetDirection>
<StreetName>Main</StreetName>
<StreetSuffix>St.</StreetSuffix>
<Unit>207</Unit>
<City>Denver</City>
<State>CO</State>
<Zip>80123</Zip>
</Address>
But I'd want to wind up serializing to:
<Address>
<StreetNumber>123</StreetNumber>
<StreetDirection>S.</StreetDirection>
<StreetName>Main</StreetName>
<StreetSuffix>St.</StreetSuffix>
<Unit>207</Unit>
<City>Denver</City>
<State>CO</State>
<Zip>80123</Zip>
<AddressLine1>123 S. Main St.</AddressLine1>
</Address>
Thanks,
John
Your question is a bit confusing because you mention the XmlSerializer but you show a DataContract class. Is the data being deserialized (read) and serialized (written) with the same serializer? If so, is it the DataContractSerializer or the XmlSerializer? Or are you trying to read with the DataContractSerializer and write with the XmlSerializer? Anyway, assuming the simple case, that you both read and write using the DataContractSerializer, all you need to do is to make AddressLine1 into a property with a getter and setter and mark it with [DataMember(IsRequired=false)]. Then, in the AddressLine1 property getter, put your address concatenation code, and in the property setter just do nothing. This way, on deserialization, AddressLine1 will just be ignored (even if it's not present at all in the XML it won't cause an error), but on serialization it will be correctly written out.
I would have thought that you would not need to serialize the AddressLine1 property at all and simply have it as a helper read-only property.
[IgnoreDataMember()]
public string AddressLine1
{
get
{
return StreetNumber + " " + StreetDirection + " " + StreetName + " " + StreetSuffice;
}
}
As the value can be constructed whenever it is needed there is no point in serializing and transferring it in addition to the street set of properties. Of course, you could make the implemention more efficient by caching the value and only recreating it when one of the street properties actually changes.
Related
I realize what the {get; set;} syntax is doing from this link on Auto-Implemented Properties.
What I do not understand is what is the point beside confusing the hell out of new C# programmers???
I mean first we get taught the whole point of Properties and Accessors is to prevent clients from having uncontrolled access to the fields within the class.
But isn't this EXACTLY with the auto-implemented property is doing?
I mean you can only use this syntax if you do not implement any logic for the property accessors. In fact you cannot even access the private anonymous backing field that is created by the compiler within the class object itself?
So what is the difference from just declaring a public field called Name in the class??
I see no difference between
class Foo
{
public string Name {get; set;}
}
and this
class Foo
{
public string Name;
}
Other then the fact that the auto-implemented property version is longer, more confusing, and made me spent 3 hours trying to understand it and gave me a splitting headache and made me want to write this rant!
Furthermore, it seems to me that the auto-implemented property version actually is less efficient in that the compiler is doing alot more work behind the scenes. It has to create the private anonymous backing filed, the get and set accessors, and finally call the accessors. Where the second version simply reads and writes to the public field directly.
It's just for simplification. The compiler will auto-generate the regular implementation.
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set { _name = value; }
}
To preface, I am using Entity Framework 6 with a code first approach.
I created a simple binary tree node class for storing a series of 'rules'. I want to store the tree as an object in the database but still be able to access it directly as a property of the object it belongs to.
The problem is I encounter this error when trying to create the tree as a property of the object:
A circular ComplexType hierarchy was detected. Self-referencing ComplexTypes are not supported.
Here is the definition for the table I want to store the tree in:
<Table("Logic", Schema:="dbo")> _
Public Class Logic
<Key>
Public Property ID As Integer
Public Property Expression As String
Public Property Tree As LanguageTest5.Survey.BinaryExpressionNode
End Class
And this is the definition of the Tree:
<Serializable, ComplexType>
Public Class BinaryExpressionNode
Public Property Value As Object
Public Property LeftNode As BinaryExpressionNode
Public Property RightNode As BinaryExpressionNode
Public Sub New(Val As Object)
Value = Val
End Sub
End Class
Is there another way I can have Tree as an accessible property of Logic without having to manually serialize/deserialize it?
UPDATE: Since I wasn't able to avoid serialization, I decided to just store the tree in the database as a string using postfix notation:
"1 2 or 3 4 or and"
From there it is pretty simple to build up the tree.
The accepted answer works nicely, provided you are familiar with serialization. In my particular case the serialization was too complex and I didn't want to take the time to sort it out.
I did put the suggestion to the test with some simpler objects and it worked without issue.
One approach is to make two properties on the Logic class as follows :
1. Store the tree as serialized string in a database property in order to avoid the storage problems - store the whole tree as one object in the database.
2. Make non-database property through which you access the deserialized tree and its nodes.
I suppose that you are going to traverse the tree in code after it is extracted from the database.
UPDATE
Here is an example of a non database property. This is a real example. Do not count in that this is an abstract class. It is the same if it was not. The [NotMapped] attribute gets the job done. Here is a complete reference to Entity Framework Data Annotations where you can find the attribute. :
public abstract class Document : Entity
{
[Required]
[StringLength(50)]
public virtual string Egn { get; set; }
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public virtual Guid Guid { get; set; }
public virtual string Subject { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public abstract EntityDataAccessKeyType EntityDataAccessKeyType { get; }
[NotMapped]
public abstract int EntityDataAccessKeyId { get; }
}
In the getter of the non database property you can implement the deserialization and return the object rather then a string. You can implement the serialization in the setter. This way you will "abstract away" the process of serialization-deserialization inside the non database property and you will continue to work with objects.
Do not fear of performance hit unless your trees are "humongous". You can always make a unit test in which you can test the count "barrier" after which the object gets too heavy.
For the serialization-deserialization you can use Json.NET.
I have two classes as below:
[DataContract]
public class Address
{
[DataMember]
public string Line1
[DataMember]
public string Line2
[DataMember]
public string City
[DataMember]
public string State
[DataMember]
public string Zip
}
[DataContract]
public class Customer
{
public Customer()
{
CustomerAddress = new Address();
}
[DataMember]
public string FirstName
[DataMember]
public string LastName
[DataMember]
public Address CustomerAddress
}
What will happen if i generate proxy of my service that uses Customer class? If i understand the concept correctly then i think the constructor in the Customer class will not be called at the client side and it may give different behavior.
How do i get rid of that constructor in the Customer class and still have the CustomerAddress property of type Address so that it behaves as a dumb DTO object?
What is the general guideline or best practices that people use to avoid this situation?
If you use the default DataContractSerializer to serialize your objects, then, yes, your constructor is not serialized, and any logic you may have in it will not be called by your client when the object is deserialized.
Regarding your question about removing the constructor logic and having the nested Address class be populated, that will be taken care of by the DataContractSerializer. If I have code like this:
Customer c = new Customer() {
FirstName = "David",
LastName = "Hoerster",
CustomerAddress = new Address() {
Line1 = "1 Main Street",
City = "Smallville",
State = "AA",
Zip = "12345"
}
};
and then return that from a service method, that Customer object will be serialized properly along with the Address information. The proxy on the client that's generated will know about Address and will be able to deserialize the stream coming from the service method to properly construct your Customer object. Your Customer will be a dummy DTO -- no logic, just properties.
Check out Aaron Skonnard's MSDN article on WCF Serialization where he talks about the DataContractSerializer.
If you generate the client (using svcutil or "add service reference"), then the generated DataContract will look like:
[DataContract]
public class Customer
{
// empty default constructor
public Customer()
{
}
[DataMember]
public string FirstName
[DataMember]
public string LastName
[DataMember]
public Address CustomerAddress
}
Your implementation details are not carried over. All that is generated is what goes into the WSDL, which is just the [DataMember] properties in this case.
I mention this because your original question asks: "What will happen if i generate proxy".
If this is an object being sent from the server to the client, then you can just always initialize CustomerAddress before sending it to the client. Infact, if your original code is on the server, then that constructor will be run, and WCF will serialize the CustomerAddress and basically never send a null (unless you set it back to null after the constructor).
If you want to make it so that the client always sends you a CustomerAddress, then you could:
have the server check for null, like if(x.CustomerAddress == null) x.CustomerAddress = new Address();
mark the DataMember as required, then the server will return an error if the client did not pass anything: [DataMember(IsRequired=true)] public Address CustomerAddress;
Otherwise, I don't think there is any way to force the generated WCF client to initialize that field for you.
You'd better define all the data contract classes in a assembly and have both server project and client project reference to the assembly so the initialization behaviour can be shared. When generating service reference, you can instruct the code generator to use existing data contract classes.
When creating a wcf class I used to do
[DataContract]
Public class Customer
{
[DataMember]
public string Name {get;set}
}
I have been told that is better to do
[DataContract]
Public class Customer
{
[DataMember]
public string Name ;
}
basically removing the get and set as will be lighter
Is this the case?
any suggestions
When you use auto-properties (using only get; set; and no backing variable), a member variable is generated randomly (you can use Reflector or ILDASM to see it). This variable, depending on the serialization scheme could be serialized.
If you rebuild, member variable name could be re-generated which can cause error in de-serialising objects serialised using old DLL. In the same way, a DLL shipped to the customer could have the OLD generated member variable so WCF communication could throw exceptions.
I'm a little inexperienced with the DataContract paradigm, and I'm running into a deserialization problem. I have a field that's a string, but it contains xml and it's not being deserialized correctly. I have a feeling that it's because the DCS is treating it as input to the serializer and not as an opaque string object.
Is there some way to mark a DataMember in code to say "This thing is a string, don't treat its contents as xml" similar to XmlIgnore?
Thanks!
Well, the equivalent to [XmlIgnore] is just not putting a [DataMember] on your property/field - if you're decorating everything with [DataMember] otherwise.
But I don't see how you could tell the DataContractSerializer to treat the property as an opaque string and nothing else.
You could try to have a separate property which adds <![CDATA[ before and ]]> after your content string, and serialize that property instead of your raw XML property (by decorating that new property with the [DataMember] attribute).
Something like this:
public string XmlContent { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string XmlContentSafe
{
get { return "<![CDATA[" + XmlContent + "]]>"; }
}
Maybe that way you can trick the DCS ? (never tried it myself - just guessing....)
Turns out the easiest way to do this was just to cast the xml field coming from sql server to a varchar(max) when retrieving it from the database.
CAST(CONVERT(XML,[RawXml],0) AS VARCHAR(MAX)) AS RawXml
In this case, the serializer seems to be ignoring it as desired.
Thanks for the help though!
There is an easy way to do, just declare the property with raw XML as XmlElement
[DataMember]
public XmlElement RawXML { private get; set; }