Can anyone tell me the recomemended case (pascal or camel) for returning classes with fields... For example, the example that comes with vs 2010 uses Pascal Case like so
// TODO: Edit the SampleItem class
public class SampleItem
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string StringValue { get; set; }
}
Notice first capital letter on Id and StringValue. I was wondering is this the recommended way? A lot of public services seem to return camelCase as fields.
I must admit it feels more natural with Pascal Case which follows the microsoft naming conventions for Properties etc.
Also the properties are going to be singular because its for 1 record i.e. Id, StringValue etc.. but what about the class name, i presume this will be singular name also as the XML that i return will make an array of SampleItem ??
I am just sort of looking for a bit of confirmation really.
The class i return will contain fields for my specific returned data, is there any fields i should be including by default.... I think not?? As if it fails i just return Error 400 so i don't need to supply any Error Number, Error Desc etc in each class
Any comments really appreciated
EDIT
here is an exmaple of the method i am using to return the xml ... its the default method in the standard vs 2010 template
[WebGet(UriTemplate = "")]
public List<SampleItem> GetCollection()
{
// TODO: Replace the current implementation to return a collection of SampleItem instances
return new List<SampleItem>() { new SampleItem() { Id = 1, StringValue = "Hello" } };
}
Of course this method returns a LIST (only an exmaple) of SampleItem..
SampleItem is a class and here it is
// TODO: Edit the SampleItem class
public class SampleItem
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string StringValue { get; set; }
}
The Microsoft Naming Conventions suggest PascalCasing for properties, and camelCasing for parameters. Therefore, your current casing is correct, if your goal is to match Microsoft's standards.
Related
I have the following class I'd like to send from my WCF (C#) service to my client (WPF):
[DataContract]
public class OutputAvailableEventArgs
{
[DataMember]
public int ID { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Message { get; private set; }
[DataMember]
public bool IsError { get; private set; }
public OutputAvailableEventArgs(int id) : this(id, false, "") { }
public OutputAvailableEventArgs(int id, string output) : this(id, false, output) { }
public OutputAvailableEventArgs(int id, bool isError, string output)
{
ID = id;
IsError = isError;
Message = output;
}
}
It's used by the service as follows:
var channel = OperationContext.Current.GetCallbackChannel<IClientCallback>();
channel.OutputAvailable(new OutputAvailableEventArgs(1, false, "some message"));
At the client side, the members get their default values.
I tried marking them with IsRequired attribute but now the OutputAvailable at the client is not called. The code at the service side seems to run smoothly (I didn't notice anything with the debugger).
How can I transfer a DataContract class with WCF while maintaining the members' values?
(I saw solutions that suggested to use OnSerialized and OnDeserialized but I don't need just a default constructor.)
I saw many different solutions for this problem. For other people's sake I'll write some of them down + what worked for me:
It seems that in some cases specifying the items' order solves the problem. Please see this SO question for full details.
If it's some default initialization you're after, you can use OnSerialized and OnDeserialized methods to call your initialization methods.
I also tried using the IsRequired attribute on my DataMembers but still didn't get my objects.
What worked for me was adding NameSpace property in the DataContract attribute. Apparently, In order to have the contracts be considered equal, you must set the Namespace property on the DataContract to the same value on both sides.
I have been spending a couple of days now to get to know the Fluent NHibernate automapping working model. It is quite nice, but I keep detecting new details missing from my schemas. Now I want to add extra properties to my classes, but not have them mapped to the database. A typical case is when I need extra properties with internal logic.
So I read the examples and scanned StackOverflow and found out that this was not another convention to be added, but rather a matter of inheriting the DefaultAutomappingConfiguration and override the ShouldMap method.
Fine, no problem, one minute later I had something like this:
public class CustomAutomappingConfiguration : DefaultAutomappingConfiguration
{
public override bool ShouldMap(Member member)
{
var explicitSkip = member.PropertyType.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(SkipMap), false).Length > 0;
if ((member.IsProperty && !member.CanWrite) || explicitSkip)
{
return false;
}
return base.ShouldMap(member);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Don't map this property to database.
/// </summary>
public class SkipMap : Attribute
{
}
public class DemoClass
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual MyBitwiseEnum Status { get; set; }
public virtual bool IsValid
{
get
{
return (int)Status > 3;
}
}
[SkipMap]
public virtual bool IsBad
{
get
{
return MyBitwiseEnum.HasFlag(MyBitwiseEnum.Bad);
}
set
{
MyEnum = value ? MyBitwiseEnum | MyBitwiseEnum.Bad : MyBitwiseEnum ^ MyBitwiseEnum.Bad;
}
}
}
I know that my demo class is kind of stupid, but it will illustrate my point.
The idea is that I want to manually decide what properties to map to database.
The readonly property works fine because the ShouldMap method will look for property.CanWrite. But the custom attribute that definitely is set will not be detected. Why is that!?
In the convention methods I have used the same approach frequently and there it works fine. Why is the property not able to detect defined attributes here, when it obviously can in the convention setting. Is there a workaround?
have you added your new automapconvention to Automap?
AutoMap.AssemblyOf<>(new CustomAutomappingConfiguration())
Update: you are getting the skip attribute from Boolean class instead of the property
member.PropertyType.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(SkipMap), false)
should be
member.MemberInfo.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(SkipMap), false)
Just to be sure the custom attribute is applicable to properties, try adding [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)] to your SkipMap class.
Another possibility is an attribute name clash with another attribute that applies to different targets. Try renaming the class to something like MyVerySpecialSkipMap and retest to verify you don't have an attribute clash. At the very least, write some simple reflection code to test for the SkipMap attribute outside the context of your application to ensure it can be found.
This is one of the classes in Interface file.
[DataContract]
public class ClassX
{
public ClassX()
{
ClassXParameters = new List<ClassXParameter>();
}
public void Add(string name, string value)
{
ClassXParameters.Add(new ClassXParameter() { Name = name, Value = value });
}
[DataMember]
public List<ClassXParameter> ClassXParameters { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class ClassXParameter
{
[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Value { get; set; }
}
on the client I'm trying to do something like this
ClassX classx = new ClassX();
classx.Add("testname", "testvalue");
But this .Add method is not even visible.
currently I'm doing
ClassX classx = new ClassX();
List<ClassXParameter> params = new List<ClassXParameter()>;
params.add(new ClassXParameter() {Name="testname", Value="testvalue"});
classx.ClassXParameters = params;
Is there anyway I can do what I'm trying to do?
Note: I am not sure why some of the text above are in bold.
If you autogenerate the client code from scratch, it will generate a new class, which contains those members and properties that are marked with DataContract.
If you have methods that you want available on the client, you can accomplish this by putting the DataContract types in an own assembly, which you reference from both the server and the client. When you generate the service reference you have to choose the option to reuse existing classes instead of generating new ones.
Often it is suitable to put data validation rules in the data contract classes property setters. Reusing the data contract assembly in the client will cause the data validation to occur directly on the client, without the need for a roundtrip. It also causes the error in a place where it is much easier to spot than if it is reported as deserialization error.
Data Contracts are for data only. Any methods will not be visible on the client.
The bold was because of the "-----".
I have spent some time writing code for my application assuming that the serialisation bit would be the easiest part of it. Pretty much both sides (client and server) are done and all I need to do is passing a class AccountInfo from the service to the client... The problem is that AccountInfo inherits List and therefore [DataContract] attribute is not valid. I tried using the [CollectionDataContract] attribute but then the class that is received on the other side (client) contains only generic List methods without my custom implemented properties such as GroupTitle...I have worked out a solution for this problem but I don't know how to apply it.
Basically everything works when I make a property instead of inheriting a List but then I can't bind this class to LongListSelector (WP7) because it's not a collection type.
There are three classes I'm on about. AccountInfo that contains multiple instances of: AccountInfoGroup that contains multiple instances of:AccountInfoEntry (this one does not inherit list therefore there are no problems serialising it and all properties are accessible).
Could someone help me using right attributes to serialise and transfer these classes using a WCF method?
Here is the code of 2 of these collection classes:
public class AccountInfo : List<AccountInfoGroup>
{
public AccountInfo()
{
UpdateTime = DateTime.UtcNow;
EntryID = Guid.NewGuid();
}
public bool HasItems
{
get
{
return (Count != 0);
}
private set
{
}
}
public Guid EntryID
{
get;
set;
}
public decimal GetTotalCredit()
{
decimal credit = 0;
foreach (AccountInfoGroup acg in this.Where(item => item.Class == AccountInfoEntry.EntryType.Credit))
{
acg.Where(item => item.ItemClass == AccountInfoEntry.EntryType.Credit).ToList().ForEach(entry =>
{ credit += entry.Remaining; }
);
}
return credit;
}
public bool UsedForCreditComparison = false;
public DateTime UpdateTime { get; private set; }
}
public class AccountInfoGroup : List<AccountInfoEntry>
{
public AccountInfoEntry.EntryType Class
{
get;
private set;
}
public string Title
{
get
{
return AccountInfoEntry.ClassToString(Class);
}
}
public AccountInfoGroup(AccountInfoEntry.EntryType groupClass)
{
this.#Class = groupClass;
}
public bool HasItems
{
get
{
return (Count != 0);
}
private set
{
}
}
}
Thank you for any suggestions... :)
The sample you had is quite painful for WCF in serialization.
What I suggest is you to revised and have a common models for your WCF messages (That means it only contains properties with getter and setter, serialization attributes).
If you have a problem in LongListSelector binding in WP7, you might want to convert the message to the actual type the WP7 object supports to use in binding.
I'm trying to save a mapped entity using NHibernate but my insert to the database fails because the underlying table has a column that does not allow nulls and IS NOT mapped in my domain object. The reason it isn't mapped is because the column in question supports a legacy application and has no relevance to my application - so I'd like to not pollute my entity with the legacy property.
I know I could use a private field inside my class - but this still feels nasty to me. I've read that I can use an NHibernate interceptor and override the OnSave() method to add in the new column right before my entity is saved. This is proving difficult since I can't work out how to add an instance of Nhibernate.type.IType to the types parameter of my interceptor's OnSave.
My Entity roughly looks like this:
public class Client
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual int ParentId { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Phone { get; set; }
public virtual string Email { get; set; }
public virtual string Url { get; set; }
}
And my interceptor
public class ClientInterceptor : EmptyInterceptor
{
public override bool OnSave(object entity, object id, object[] state, string[] propertyNames, NHibernate.Type.IType[] types)
{
if (entity is Client)
{
/*
manually add the COM_HOLD column to the Client entity
*/
List<string> pn_list = propertyNames.ToList();
pn_list.Add("COM_HOLD");
propertyNames = pn_list.ToArray();
List<Object> _state = state.ToList();
_state.Add(false);
state = _state.ToArray();
//somehow add an IType to types param ??
}
return base.OnSave(entity, id, state, propertyNames, types);
}
}
Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this properly?
I can't say for sure since I've never actually done this (like Stefan, I also prefer to just add a private property), but can you just add a NHibernate.Type.BooleanType to the types array?
List<IType> typeList = types.ToList();
typeList.Add(new BooleanType());
types = typesList.ToArray();
EDIT
Yes, it looks like you are right; the types have an internal constructor. I did some digging and found TypeFactory:
Applications should use static
methods and constants on
NHibernate.NHibernateUtil if the
default IType is good enough. For example, the TypeFactory should only
be used when the String needs to have a length of 300 instead of 255. At this point
NHibernate.String does not get you thecorrect IType. Instead use TypeFactory.GetString(300) and keep a
local variable that holds a reference to the IType.
So it looks like what you want is NHibernateUtil:
Provides access to the full range of
NHibernate built-in types. IType
instances may be used to bind values
to query parameters. Also a factory
for new Blobs and Clobs.
typeList.Add(NHibernateUtil.Boolean);
Personally I wouldn't do it so complicated. I would add the private property and assign it a default value - finished. You could also consider a default value in the database, then you don't need to do anything else.
private virtual bool COM_HOLD
{
get { return false; }
set { /* make NH happy */ }
}
Before writing a interceptor for that I would consider to write a database trigger. Because with the Interceptor you are "polluting" your data access layer. It could make it unstable and you could have strange problems.