I removed [DataMember] attribute from all of my public properties, yet the properties are still showing up in the results of my WCF operations. I found this link here that explains if .Net is on both ends of the wire, then DataMember doesn't have much of an effect on determining what properties are included in the DataContract.
So, how do you exclude public properties from being included in WCF results?
Thanks
There are several different ways that the serialization in WCF can work. They are outlined here. Note that [Serializable] classes can also be used.
Note the last item in that list: Starting with 3.5 SP1, classes that are not annotated with any option would still be serializable by the WCF infrastructure. If you do that, however, you're left with no way to control how that serialization happens and what properties are serialized (which is why I personally feel that option was a mistake to add, but that's another story).
Is there any reason why you removed the [DataContract][DataMember] attributes?
Related
I built a number of WCF services as part of an application. Until recently, most of the classes that were used as parameters of the many operations in a service did not had the DataContract or DataMember attributes applied to them.
Now, I've made a few changes in a row and all of a sudden WCF is complaining that he can't serialize my classes.
Does anyone knows if any changes in configuration or even in the ServiceContract, OperationContract etc. can cause WCF to become picky about the classes it can serialize?
I'd rather not need the attributes in those classes (they should be pure C# classes as possible).
Also of note, if I return to a previous version in my source control, WCF goes back to "normal", so I believe that it's not a machine/environment thing.
The ability to create WCF Data Contracts without the use of the [DataContract] and [DataMember] attributes is a feature added to WCF in .NET 3.5 SP1. Since everything works for you when reverting your code to a previous version, I'm assuming you are already using at least that version.
Nevertheless, in order for classes to be serializable by WCF, the class must meet several requirements listed here. The main requirements of the data contract class are:
It must be public.
It must have a parameterless constructor.
It must not have any data members that do not meet all these requirements. If you do have such a member, mark it with [IgnoreDataMember] and it will be excluded from WCF serialization.
You can get more information about what fails to serialize by performing the serialization manually using the DataContractSerializer class. See this article for more details and code examples. Another method is to mark all members with [IgnoreDataMember] and gradually remove the attributes from members until serialization fails, which will tell you which member is causing the problem.
WCF is lenient towards classes that have [serializable] attribute. You don't require [DataContract]. You must have added something that is not serializable.
I know a way to do that. it's not professional but it works for me
I'm also need pure c# classes so I do it in this way.
I convert each parameter of my class to an object then gather them into array of objects and send it to the other side. in the other side I do the reverse operation to get my parameters back. but this operation will reduce the performance i think
Are there any ways to tell WCF to serialize the whole class when it returns? Do I literally have to add DataMember to every property?
Since .NET 3.5 SP1, you don't have to do this anymore.
If you don't have any [DataContract] and [DataMember] attributes, the DataContractSerializer class will behave like the old XmlSerializer: it will serialize all public read/write properties that are listed in the class.
You do lose a few things in the process though:
since you don't have [DataMember] attributes, you cannot define an order of the fields anymore - they'll be serialized in the order of appearance
you cannot omit a public property (since that would require [DataMember] on all other properties/fields)
you cannot define a property to be Required (that would be on the [DataMember] attribute again)
your class now needs to have a public, parameter-less constructor (usually not needed for data contracts)
Read all about it in detail from Aaron Skonnard at Pluralsight.
I love marc's answer, but I want to add some more info.
DataContractSerializer and DataContractJsonSerializer both support, out of the box, many other serialization models as well. This includes IXmlSerializable, Serializable, and ISerializable. POCO support was added in .NET 3.5 SP1, but support for these other models has always been there since .NET 3
This blog post details the extent of the support and more importantly, the prioritization of different models by the serializer (i.e., it tells you what DataContract-based serializers would do if you have one type decorated with multiple serialization models)
So, if you read that blog post, you'll notice that POCO support is last in the priority list. It is the serializer's last resort, if there is absolutely no other serialization programming model available on the type or its parent. For example, if the type is an enumerable of some sort, it will get serializaed according to traditional collection rules. If it's ISerializable or Serializable, it will get serialized according to their serialization rules.
Another important difference: during deserialization of all other types, the default zero-params constructor is never called. For POCO types, it is always called! This gives you an additional hook you don't have so easily in other serialization models!
I have several classes such as Order, Customer, etc. These classes serve for holding data and nothing more. I want to be able to reuse these classes in other projects in the future, but for some reason I don't quite understand, WCF forces me to decorate the data members with the [DataMember] attribute, forcing me to reference WCF plumbing that I will never use in other projects.
I would imagine that WCF lets you take any serializable class and use it as a content type. Am I understanding this correctly?
Yes, with .NET 3.5 SP1, the WCF DataContractSerializer will now serialize any POCO class just the same way as the XmlSerializer will - any public property will be serialized.
I don't know for sure whether that's a good thing - one of the pillars of WCF is being explicit, in order to clearly state your intent. I personally find it a good thing to mark your classes with [DataContract] and your fields and properties you want to have serialized explicitly with [DataMember] - it makes it clearer as to what's going on, and it doesn't hurt your POCO class at all.
And btw: you don't have to reference any "WCF plumbing" to do this - those attributes live in System.Runtime.Serialization - a very generic system assembly.....
I have a class, ReportDef, which is a concrete class that I've decorated with [DataContract] and [DataMember] attributes as needed. ReportDef is in assembly A1 along with my ServiceContract, IReportService. I then have another class, UiReportDef, which derives from ReportDef and is in assembly A2. UiReportDef has no additional state that the service cares about.
I want to invoke my service with an instance of UiReportDef. Is there any way (short of manually constructing a ReportDef instance from UiReportDef) to do this without having my service know about A2? I know about KnownType. I don't want to reference A2.
EDIT: Here's some context that might make my question easier to understand. My ServiceContract implements IReportService which defines a method, RunReport(ReportDef report). ReportDef is decorated with the DataContract attribute, and has private members decorated with DataMember. UiReportDef is in an assembly that depends on UI-related assemblies, etc. I didn't design the existing class hierarchy. I need to pass ReportDefs and UiReportDefs (as ReportDefs) to the new service. Since ReportDef is concrete, I would expect the serializer to treat UiReportDefs as ReportDefs in the absence of any other information.
I didn't understand you question.
But I think I understand part of it now, you want to deserialize an object in an assembly that has no reference to it?
If so, you can't unless you're willing to do a whole lot of reflection and keep it defined/referenced as "object"
The common way to do this and was trying to explain in my previous answer is that you should use an interface that can be referenced by both client/server.
It is common practice to create stub assemblies consisting of nothing but interfaces for this case.
Or as your comment on your question suggests, you can use DTO objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Transfer_Object
This thread may probably help a lot : WCF Inheritance and DataContract
WCF is not polymorphic because its not object oriented. Hence this is not possible.
I've been coming up with a lot of dead ends on this question. Supposedly, .NET 3.5 SP1 has Support for ADO.NET Entity Framework entities in WCF contracts. But when I look for solid info on it I'm not getting a lot of answers. I found this one snippet on an MSDN thread. Does anyone have any experience with this? What happened to the [DataContract]? Is this all there is to it? Why is there so little material on this?
This the answer from Tim Mallalieu in Microsoft.
Entity Types that are generated in the Entity Framework are, by default Data Contracts.
If I were to create a simple model in the Entity Designer like the following:
The cart Entity Type is by default a DataContract with all properties annotated as data members. We can then use this in a WCF service as follows:
[ServiceContract]
public interface IService1
{
[OperationContract]
Cart[] AllCarts();
}
public class Service1 : IService1
{
public Cart[] AllCarts()
{
using (MSPetShop4Entities context = new MSPetShop4Entities())
{
var carts = from c in context.Carts select c;
return carts.ToArray();
}
}
}
As the Entities are DataContracts you can now roll your services as you see fit and send these across the wire.
I recommend that you not return Entities directly. Unfortunately, Microsoft chose to include implementation-specific data as part of the DataContract for entities. This will not interoperate with other platforms, and is the sort of thing that might fail to interoperate even between .NET versions.
Instead, I recommend you follow the Data Transfer Object pattern and just return POCO classes that are copies of the data in the entities, with no behavior. You can return List of such classes to represent a table, etc.
The "sharing interfaces and not type" tenet presupposes that you don't own both ends of the wire and/or you're writing a public-facing web service. WCF can be used (and is used) in contexts where this is decidedly not the case. Many enterprise n-tier architectures have a WCF-fronted application tier to facilitate load-balancing among other things. In these cases it is perfectly valid to share type and, in fact, is desired.
You could go the easy way and use ADO.NET Data Services.
Some more detail in response to comments:
There are several problems with the classes generated by EF. I'm looking now at an AdventureWorks example with SalesOrderHeader and SalesOrderDetail. The SalesOrderDetail entity has both "SalesOrderHeader" and "SalesOrderHeaderReference" properties, both marked as DataMembers. This looks like a bug, since the "SalesOrderHeader" property is also marked [XmlIgnore] and [SoapIgnore].
Also, consider whether you want to serialize the link back to the parent SalesOrderHeader in the first place. Besides, what exactly should be serialized? SOAP doesn't support references in an interoperable manner.
Finally, the base classes of the entities are also data contracts. Yet they have nothing to do with the data you are returning - they are purely an implementation artifact.
In short, Microsoft screwed up on this one. They didn't think it through.
About ways to generate the DTO classes, I suggest looking into various code generation tools, like CodeSmith. You can write code to do this yourself; I did so in my previous position. The nice thing about generating the DTO is that you also get to generate the methods to translate to and from the DTO.
As to overhead, the overhead of moving some data around in memory is nothing compared to the amount of time it's going to take to send the data over a network!