I've been working with some serializable classes recently and they typically look something like this:
[DataContract]
public class Foo
{
[DataMember(Order = 0)]
public string Bar1
{
get;
set;
}
[DataMember(Order = 1)]
public string Bar2
{
get;
set;
}
}
I was wondering, what possible application could one have for specifying an order for the data members? The guidelines here specify that it may "Sometimes it may be necessary to change this order." but don't give any examples of when or why. Do you have any examples of when or why this may be necessary?
In my application I am simply serializing these objects of these types and saving them down to a file. Does specifying an "Order" here have any value or does it simply add something else to maintain? Would I face any problems if I simply removed "Order" from each data member?
Order specifies the order in which data members are serialized into an object, otherwise they'll be arranged alphabetically.
In some applications, it is useful to know the order in which data
from the various data members is sent or is expected to be received
(such as the order in which data appears in the serialized XML).
One of the scenarios where you would like to order your data members when you are sending response to a client with pre-defined object structure.
Refer this question for example.
Also sometimes you might be interested in showing the ID field (or similar) first, and then all the other fields, to make raw xml look end-user friendly.
And yes you won't get any error if you don't mention order.
Refer docs here
Where I work, we have a C# API that interfaces with a third-party system that uses an unusual method of database interaction in which field order is very important. When serializing an object that represents a record from a table in that system into a format that said system can understand, it is useful to us to have this order represented in the C#.
In short, it can be useful if order matters to whatever 'thing' is consuming the serialized data from the object.
Related
I have this JSON:
{
"response":
{
"data":
[
{
"start":1,
"subjects":["A"]
},
{
"start":3,
"subjects":["B"]
},
{
"start":2,
"subjects":["C"]
}
]
}
}
And I want to get only the "subject" data from the object with it's "start" value to be the smallest one that is greater than 1.3, which in this case would be C. Would anybody happen to know how such a thing can be achieved using C#?
I want to extend a bit on the other answers and shed more light into the subject.
A JSON -- JavaScript Object Notation - is just a way to move data "on a wire". Inside .NET, you shouldn't really consider your object to be a JSON, although you may colloquially refer to a data structure as such.
Having said that, what is a JSON "inside" .NET? It's your call. You can, for instance treat it as a string, but you will have a hard time doing this operation of finding a specific node based on certain parameters/rules.
Since a JSON is a tree-like structure, you could build your on data structure or use the many available on the web. This is great if you are learning the workings of the language and programming in general, bad if you are doing this professionally because you will probably be reinventing the wheel. And parsing the JSON is not a easy thing to do (again, good exercise).
So, the most time-effective way of doing? You have two options:
Use a dynamic object to represent your JSON data. A dynamic is a "extension" to .NET (actually, an extension to the CLR, that is called DLR) which lets you create objects that doesn't have classes (they can be considered to be "untyped", or, better, to use duck typing).
Use a typed structure that you defined to hold your data. This is the canonical, object-oriented, .NET way of doing it, but there's a trade-off in declaring classes and typing everything, which is costly in terms of time. The payoff is that you get better intellisense, performance (DLR objects are slower than traditional objects) and more safe code.
To go with the first approach, you can refer to #YouneS answer. You need to add a dependency to your project, Newtonsoft.Json (a nuget), and call deserialize to convert the JSON string to a dynamic object. As you can see from his answer, you can access properties in this object as you would access then on a JavaScript language. But you'll also realize that you have no intellisense and things such as myObj.unexistentField = "asd" will be allowed. That is the nature of dynamic typed objects.
The second approach is to declare all types. Again, this is time consuming and on many cases you'll prefer not to do it. Refer to Microsoft Docs to get more insight.
You should first create your data contracts, as below (forgive me for any typos, I'm not compiling the code).
[DataContract]
class DataItem
{
[DataMember]
public string Start { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string[] Subjects { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
class ResponseItem
{
[DataMember]
public DateItem[] Data { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
class ResponseContract
{
[DataMember]
public ResponseItem Response { get; set; }
}
Once you have all those data structures declared, deserialize your json to it:
using (var ms = new MemoryStream(Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(json)))
{
var deserializer = new DataContractJsonSerializer(typeof(ResponseContract));
return (T)deserializer.ReadObject(ms);
}
The code above may seem a bit complicated, but follow a bit of .NET / BCL standards. The DataContractJsonSerializer work only with streams, so you need to open a stream that contains your string. So you create a memory stream with all the bytes from the json string.
You can also use Newtonsoft to do that, which is much simpler but, of course, still requires that extra dependency:
DataContract contract = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<DataContract>(output);
If you use this approach you don't need the annotations (all those DataMember and DataContract) on your classes, making code a bit more clean. I very much prefer using this approach than DataContractJsonSerializer, but it's your call.
I've talked a lot about serializing and deserializing objects, but your question was, "How do I find a certain node?". All the discussion above was just a prerequisite.
There are, again and as usual, a few ways of achieving what you want:
#YouneS answer. It's very straightforward and achieves what you are looking for.
Use the second approach above, and then use your typed object to get what you want. For instance:
var contract = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<DataContract>(output);
var query = from dataItem in contract.Response.Data
where dataItem.Start > 1.3
order by dataItem.Start;
var item = query.FirstOrNull();
Which will return the first item which, since it's ordered, should be the smallest. Remember to test the result for null.
You can use a feature from Newtonsoft that enables to directly find the node you want. Refer to the documentation. A warning, it's a bit advanced and probably overkill for simple cases.
You can make it work with something like the following code :
// Dynamic object that will hold your Deserialized json string
dynamic myObj = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<dynamic>(YOUR-JSON-STRING);
// Will hold the value you are looking for
string[] mySubjectValue = "";
// Looking for your subject value
foreach(var o in myObj.response.data) {
if(o.start > 1.3)
mySubjectValue = o.subjects;
}
I have been working on a client - server project. The server side implemented on PHP. The client implemented on C#. The websocket is used for connection between them.
So, here is the problem. Client will make a request. Json is in use for sending objects and validating against the schema. The request MUST HAVE it's name and MAY contain args. Args are like associative array (key => value).
Server will give a response. Response MAY contain args, objects, array of objects. For example, client sends a request like:
{
"name": "AuthenticationRequest",
"username": "root",
"password": "password",
"etc": "etc"
}
For this, server will reply with an AuthSuccess or AuthFailed response like:
{
"name": "AuthFailed",
"args": [
{
"reason": "Reason text"
}]
}
If response is AuthSuccess, client will send a requst of who is online. Server must send an array of users.
And so on. So the problem is, how to store those responses on a client side. I mean, the way of creating a new object for each response type is insane. They will be hundreds of request types, and each of them requires it's own response. And any changing in structure of request will be very very hard...
Need some kind of pattern or trick. I know it's kind of a noob way... But if anyone has a better idea of implementing request/response structure, please tell it.
Best regards!
I'd definitely go with a new class for each request type. Yes, you may need to write a lot of code but it'll be safer. The point (to me) is who will write this code?. Let's read this answer to the end (or directly jump to last suggested option).
In these examples I'll use Dictionary<string, string> for generic objects but you may/should use a proper class (which doesn't expose dictionary), arrays, generic enumerations or whatever you'll feel comfortable with.
1. (Almost) Strongly Typed Classes
Each request has its own strongly typed class, for example:
abstract class Request {
protected Request(string name) {
Name = name;
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
public Dictionary<string, string> Args { get; set; }
}
sealed class AuthenticationRequest : Request
{
public AuthenticationRequest() : base("AuthenticationRequest") {
}
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
}
Note that you may switch to a full typed approach also dropping Dictionary for Args in favor of typed classes.
Pros
What you saw as a drawback (changes are harder) is IMO a big benefit. If you change anything server-side then your request will fail because properties won't match. No subtle bugs where fields are left uninitialized because of typos in strings.
It's strongly typed then your C# code is easier to maintain, you have compile-time checks (both for names and types).
Refactoring is easier because IDE can do it for you, no need to blind search and replace raw strings.
It's easy to implement complex types, your arguments aren't limited to plain string (it may not be an issue now but you may require it later).
Cons
You have more code to write at very beginning (however class hierarchy will also help you to spot out dependencies and similarities).
2. Mixed Approach
Common parameters (name and arguments) are typed but everything else is stored in a dictionary.
sealed class Request {
public string Name { get; set; }
public Dictionary<string, string> Args { get; set; }
public Dictionary<string, string> Properties { get; set; }
}
With a mixed approach you keep some benefits of typed classes but you don't have to define each request type.
Pros
It's faster to implement than a almost/full typed approach.
You have some degree of compile-time checks.
You can reuse all code (I'd suppose your Request class will be also reused for Response class and if you move your helper methods - such as GetInt32() - to a base class then you'll write code once).
Cons
It's unsafe, wrong types (for example you retrieve an integer from a string property) aren't detected until error actually occurs at run-time.
Changes won't break compilation: if you change property name then you have to manually search each place you used that property. Automatic refactoring won't work. This may cause bugs pretty hard to detect.
Your code will be polluted with string constants (yes, you may define const string fields) and casts.
It's hard to use complex types for your arguments and you're limited to string values (or types that can be easily serialized/converted to a plain string).
3. Dynamic
Dynamic objects let you define an object and access it properties/methods as a typed class but they will be actually dynamically resolved at run-time.
dynamic request = new ExpandoObject();
request.Name = "AuthenticationRequest";
request.UserName = "test";
Note that you may also have this easy to use syntax:
dynamic request = new {
Name = "AuthenticationRequest",
UserName = "test"
};
Pros
If you add a property to your schema you don't need to update your code if you don't use it.
It's little bit more safe than an untyped approach. For example if request is filled with:
request.UserName = "test";
If you wrongly write this:
Console.WriteLine(request.User);
You will have a run-time error and you still have some basic type checking/conversion.
Code is little bit more readable than completely untyped approach.
It's easy and possible to have complex types.
Cons
Even if code is little bit more readable than completely untyped approach you still can't use refactoring features of your IDE and you almost don't have compile-time checks.
If you change a property name or structure in your schema and you forget to update your code (somewhere) you will have an error only at run-time when it'll happen you use it.
4. Auto-generated Strongly Typed Classes
Last but best...so far we did forget an important thing: JSON has schema with which it can be validatd (see json-schema.org).
How it can be useful? Your fully typed classes can be generated from that schema, let's take a look to JSON schema to POCO. If you don't have/don't want to use a schema you still can generate classes from JSON examples: take a look to JSON C# Class Generator project.
Just create one example (or schema) for each request/response and use a custom code generator/build task to build C# classes from that, something like this (see also MSDN about custom build tools):
Cvent.SchemaToPoco.Console.exe -s %(FullPath) -o .\%(Filename).cs -n CsClient.Model
Pro
All the pros of above solutions.
Cons
Nothing I can think about...
Why is it a problem to create a class for each kind of Request / Response? If you have hundreds of different kinds of Requests and Responses, you might want to try and categorize them better.
I would argue there are common patterns across your requests or responses. Eg. a FailureResponse might always contain some status information and maybe an UserData-object (which could be anything depending on the use-case). This can be applied to other categories likewise (eg. SuccessResponse).
dynamic is a new static type that acts like a placeholder for a type not known until runtime. Once the dynamic object is declared, it is possible to call operations, get and set properties on it, even pass the dynamic instance pretty much as if it were any normal type. dynamic gives us a lot of rope to hang themselves with. When dealing with objects whose types can be known at compile time, you should avoid the dynamic keyword at all costs
You can read more about Dynamic
I have a simple set of 20+ classes. They are all serializable to allow use of these objects within a web service. (DataContract/DataMember) Each of them has an ID and a variable number of other properties, depending on the class.
And I have a database which will store just an ID, a Name that identifies the class and an XML string. And this XML is also the same data in serialized form, but without one property: the ID field should not be stored, since it's redundant.
But the ID must still be sent to the client of the web service, making things a bit complex. And although I could just create a copy of each class, where one has the ID as DataMember and the other doesn't, I'm just looking for a much cleaner solution to solve this. One where I would not need to store the ID field as part of the XML within the database.
So, question: what is the simplest solution to make sure the ID becomes part of the data that's sent to the client, but skipped when storing it as XML? (Without the need of hacking in the XML to remove it.)
And although I could just create a copy of each class, where one has
the ID as DataMember and the other doesn't
What about inheritance?
public class MyEntity
{
// some props
}
public class MyEntityWithId : MyEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
// some props
}
SOME CONTEXT
one of my projects requires carrying around some of "metadata" (yes I hate using that word).
What the metadata specifically consists of is not important, only that it's more complex than a simple "table" or "list" - you could think of it as a mini-database of information
Currently I have this metadata stored in an XML file and have an XSD that defines the schema.
I want to package this metadata with my project, currently that means keeping the XML file as a resource
However, I have been looking for a more strongly-typed alternative. I am considering moving it from an XML file to C# code - so instead of using XML apis to traverse my metadata, relying on .NET code via reflection on types
Besides the strong(er) typing, some useful characteristics I see from using an assembly are for this: (1) I can refactor the "schema" to some extent with tools like Resharper, (2) The metadata can come with code, (3) don't have to rely on any external DB component.
THE QUESTIONS
If you have tried something like this, I am curious about what you learned.
Was your experience positive?
What did you learn?
What problems in this approach did you uncover?
What are some considerations I should take into account?
Would you do this again?
NOTES
Am not asking for how to use Reflection - no help is needed there
Am fundamentally asking about your experiences and design considerations
UPDATE: INFORMATION ABOUT THE METADATA
Because people are asking I'll try describing the metadata a bit more. I'm trying to abstract a bit - so this will seem a bit artificial.
There are three entities in the model:
A set of "groups" - each group has a unique name and several properites (usually int values that represent ID numbers of some kind)
Each "group" contains 1 or more "widgets" (never more than 50) - each item has properties like name (therea are multiple names), IDs, and various boolean properties.
Each widget contains a one or more "scenarios". Each "scenario" is documentation- a URL to a description of how to use the widget.
Typically I need to run these kinds of "queries"
Get the names of all the widgets
Get the names of all groups that contain at least one widget where BoolProp1=true
Get given the ID of a widget, which group contains that widget
How I was thinking about modelling the entities in the assembly
There are 3 classes: Group, Widget, Documentation
There are 25 Groups so I will have 25 Group classes - so "FooGroup" will derive from Group, same pattern follows for widgets and documentation
Each class will have attributes to account for names, ids, etc.
I have used and extended Metadata for a large part of my projects, many of them related to describing components, relationships among them, mappings, etc.
(Major categories of using attributes extensively include O/R Mappers, Dependency Injection framework, and Serialization description - specially XML Serialization)
Well, I'm going to ask you to describe a little bit more about the nature of the data you want to embed as resource. Using attributes are naturally good for the type of data that describes your types and type elements, but each usage of attributes is a simple and short one. Attributes (I think) should be very cohesive and somehow independent from each other.
One of the solutions that I want to point you at, is the "XML Serialization" approach. You can keep your current XMLs, and put them into your assemblies as Embedded Resource (which is what you've probably done already) and read the whole XML at once into a strongly-typed hierarchy of objects.
XML Serialization is very very simple to use, much simpler than the typical XML API or even LINQ2XML, in my opinion. It uses Attributes to map class properties to XML elements and XML attributes. Once you've loaded the XML into the objects, you have everything you want in the memory as "typed" data.
Based on what I understand from your description, I think you have a lot of data to be placed on a single class. This means a large and (in my opinion) ugly attribute code above the class. (Unless you can distribute your data among members making each of them small and independent, which is nice.)
I have many positive experiences using XML Serialization for large amount of data. You can arrange data as you want, you get type safety, you get IntelliSence (if you give your XSD to visual studio), and you also get half of the Refactoring. ReSharper (or any other refactoring tool that I know of) don't recognize XML Serialization, so when you refactor your typed classes, it doesn't change the XML itself, but changes all the usage of the data.
If you give me more details on what your data is, I might be able to add something to my answer.
For XML Serialization samples, just Google "XML Serialization" or look it up in MSDN.
UPDATE
I strongly recommend NOT using classes for representing instances of your data. Or even using a class to encapsulate data is against its logical definition.
I guess your best bet would be XML Serialization, provided that you already have your data in XML. You get all the benefits you want, with less code. And you can perform any query on the XML Serializable objects using LINQ2Objects.
A part of your code can look like the following:
[XmlRoot]
public class MyMetadata
{
[XmlElement]
public Group[] Groups { get; set; }
}
public class Group
{
[XmlAttribute]
public string Name { get; set; }
[XmlAttribute]
public int SomeNumber { get; set; }
[XmlElement]
public Widget[] Widgets { get; set; }
}
public class Widget
{
...
}
You should call new XmlSerializer(typeof(MyMetadata)) to create a serializer, and call its Deserialize method giving it the stream of your XML, and you get a filled instance of MyMetadata class.
It's not clear from your description but it sounds like you have assembly-level metadata that you want to be able to access (as opposed to type-level). You could have a single class in each assembly that implements a common interface, then use reflection to hunt down that class and instantiate it. Then you can hard-code the metadata within.
The problems of course are the benefits that you lose from the XML -- namely that you can't modify the metadata without a new build. But if you're going this direction you probably have already taken that into account.
I would like to generate a list of differences between 2 instances of the the same object. Object in question:
public class Step
{
[DataMember]
public StepInstanceInfo InstanceInfo { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public Collection<string> AdHocRules { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public Collection<StepDoc> StepDocs
{...}
[DataMember]
public Collection<StepUsers> StepUsers
{...}
}
What I would like to do is find an intelligent way to return an object that lists the differences between the two instances (for example, let me know that 2 specific StepDocs were added, 1 specific StepUser was removed, and one rule was changed from "Go" to "Stop"). I have been looking into using a MD5 hash, but I can't find any good examples of traversing an object like this and returning a manifest of the specific differences (not just indicating that they are different).
Additional Background: the reason that I need to do this is the API that I am supporting allows clients to SaveStep(Step step)...this works great for persisting the Step object to the db using entities and repositories. I need to raise specific events (like this user was added, etc) from this SaveStep method, though, in order to alert another system (workflow engine) that a specific element in the step has changed.
Thank you.
You'll need a separate object, like StepDiff with collections for removed and added items. The easiest way to do something like this is to copy the collections from each of the old and new objects, so that StepDiff has collectionOldStepDocs and collectionNewStepDocs.
Grab the shorter collection and iterate through it and see if each StepDoc exists in the other collection. If so, delete the StepDoc reference from both collections. Then when you're finished iterating, collectionOldStepDocs contains stepDocs that were deleted and collectionNewStepDocs contains the stepDocs that were added.
From there you should be able to build your manifest in whatever way necessary.
Implementing the IComparable interface in your object may provide you with the functionality you need. This will provide you a custom way to determine differences between objects without resorting to checksums which really won't help you track what the differences are in usable terms. Otherwise, there's no way to determine equality between two user objects in .NET that I know of. There are some decent examples of the usage of this interface in the help file for Visual Studio, or here. You might be able to glean some directives from the examples on clean ways to compare the properties and store the values in some usable manner for tracking purposes (perhaps a collection, or dictionary object?).
Hope this helps,
Greg