Serialize to ASP.NET ViewState using DataContract/DataMember attributes of EF POCOs - asp.net

I have a series of EF POCOs which have DataContract attributes, and DataMember attributes for all the properties, except for the navigation properties.
In this way, when I serialize the objects for WCF, only the desired properties are serialized, leaving out the navigation properties.
If I try to store one of these objects in ViewState I get the error that the object is not serializable. But, if I add the Serializable attribute to the object, the serializer tries to serialize also all the navigation properties, which, in turn requires them to be marked also as serializable.
Is there a way to force the ViewState (StateBag) to use the DataContract attributes? Is it possible to customize or replace the ViewState serialization?
If it's not possible, would I have to used the Selializable attribute for the classes, and the NotSerialized for all the navigation properties or is there a better solution?

There is a better solution - not to mix domains. When you serialize objects for WCF you are entering a different domain - the domain of Data Transfer Objects, DTOs in short.
DTOs are separate from your persisting objects, they don't have complex navigation properties, rather - contain the only data needed at the client side.
A commin practice is to use Automapper or a similar subsystem to easily convert from/to DTOs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_transfer_object

Related

JSON.net ContractResolver vs. JsonConverter

I've been working with JSON.net for a while. I have written both custom converters and custom contract resolvers (generally from modifying examples on S.O. and the Newtonsoft website), and they work fine.
The challenge is, other than examples, I see little explanation as to when I should use one or the other (or both) for processing. Through my own experience, I've basically determined that contract resolvers are simpler, so if I can do what I need with them, I go that way; otherwise, I use custom JsonConverters. But, I further know both are sometimes used together, so the concepts get further opaque.
Questions:
Is there a source that distinguishes when to user one vs. the other? I find the Newtonsoft documentation unclear as to how the two are differentiated or when to use one or the other.
What is the pipeline of ordering between the two?
Great question. I haven't seen a clear piece of documentation that says when you should prefer to write a custom ContractResolver or a custom JsonConverter to solve a particular type of problem. They really do different things, but there is some overlap between what kinds of problems can be solved by each. I've written a fair number of each while answering questions on StackOverflow, so the picture has become a little more clear to me over time. Below is my take on it.
ContractResolver
A contract resolver is always used by Json.Net, and governs serialization / deserialization behavior at a broad level. If there is not a custom resolver provided in the settings, then the DefaultContractResolver is used. The resolver is responsible for determining:
what contract each type has (i.e. is it a primitive, array/list, dictionary, dynamic, JObject, plain old object, etc.);
what properties are on the type (if any) and what are their names, types and accessibility;
what attributes have been applied (e.g. [JsonProperty], [JsonIgnore], [JsonConverter], etc.), and
how those attributes should affect the (de)serialization of each property (or class).
Generally speaking, if you want to customize some aspect of serialization or deserialization across a wide range of classes, you will probably need to use a ContractResolver to do it. Here are some examples of things you can customize using a ContractResolver:
Change the contract used for a type
Serialize all Dictionaries as an Array of Key/Value Pairs
Serialize ListItems as a regular object instead of string
Change the casing of property names when serializing
Use camel case for all property names
Camel case all property names except dictionaries
Programmatically apply attributes to properties without having to modify the classes (particularly useful if you don't control the source of said classes)
Globally use a JsonConverter on a class without the attribute
Remap properties to different names defined at runtime
Allow deserializing to public properties with non-public setters
Programmatically unapply (ignore) attributes that are applied to certain classes
Optionally turn off the JsonIgnore attribute at runtime
Make properties which are marked as required (for SOAP) not required for JSON
Conditionally serialize properties
Ignore read-only properties across all classes
Skip serializing properties that throw exceptions
Introduce custom attributes and apply some custom behavior based on those attributes
Encrypt specially marked string properties in any class
Selectively escape HTML in strings during deserialization
JsonConverter
In contrast to a ContractResolver, the focus of a JsonConverter is more narrow: it is really intended to handle serialization or deserialization for a single type or a small subset of related types. Also, it works at a lower level than a resolver does. When a converter is given responsibility for a type, it has complete control over how the JSON is read or written for that type: it directly uses JsonReader and JsonWriter classes to do its job. In other words, it can change the shape of the JSON for that type. At the same time, a converter is decoupled from the "big picture" and does not have access to contextual information such as the parent of the object being (de)serialized or the property attributes that were used with it. Here are some examples of problems you can solve with a JsonConverter:
Handle object instantiation issues on deserialization
Deserialize to an interface, using information in the JSON to decide which concrete class to instantiate
Deserialize JSON that is sometimes a single object and sometimes an array of objects
Deserialize JSON that can either be an array or a nested array
Skip unwanted items when deserializing from an array of mixed types
Deserialize to an object that lacks a default constructor
Change how values are formatted or interpretted
Serialize decimal values as localized strings
Convert decimal.MinValue to an empty string and back (for use with a legacy system)
Serialize dates with multiple different formats
Ignore UTC offsets when deserializing dates
Make Json.Net call ToString() when serializing a type
Translate between differing JSON and object structures
Deserialize a nested array of mixed values into a list of items
Deserialize an array of objects with varying names
Serialize/deserialize a custom dictionary with complex keys
Serialize a custom IEnumerable collection as a dictionary
Flatten a nested JSON structure into a simpler object structure
Expand a simple object structure into a more complicated JSON structure
Serialize a list of objects as a list of IDs only
Deserialize a JSON list of objects containing GUIDs to a list of GUIDs
Work around issues (de)serializing specific .NET types
Serializing System.Net.IPAddress throws an exception
Problems deserializing Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Rectangle

Customizing data annotation attributes for ASP.NET MVC

I would like to customize at runtime the attributes that MVC sees on a view model property. As far as I know, MVC relies internally on type descriptors to enumerate the attributes. Is there a way to hook a type descriptor somewhere to return a custom list of attributes for a property?
Is there a way to hook a type descriptor somewhere to return a custom
list of attributes for a property?
It depends. If you want to override the Data Annotations used by the metadata provider then you could write your own custom ModelMetadataProvider and replace the default one (DataAnnotationsModelMetadataProvider). This allows you to have a custom metadata provider for a given type and return this information at runtime.
If on the other hand you are doing validation, then you are a bit out of luck. For more flexibility I would recommend you using FluentValidation.NET instead of data annotations.

ASP.NET json serializer only includes __type for top level class

I'm using [webmethod] attribute in an aspx page to expose a complex data structure(autogenerated from xml->xsd->xsd.exe) to the browser.
After I get the data on the client with jquery, only the top level object includes the "__type" attribute, so I cannot determine the class of any of the nested objects(attributes, array content etc).
Is there a way to make the asp.net serializer include the __type attribute recursively when serializing an object?
I encountered a similar situation with another JSON serializer, the one from ServiceStack.Text. They will put in the __type property if an object is declared as an interface or an abstract class, perhaps the vanilla .NET serializer will do so as well? If that's the case, is there any way for you to declare your object[] array as an array of interfaces? Even something as trivial as cerating an IEmpty with no methods will do the trick.

What are the downsides of "typing" your control state?

I am relatively new to Web Parts and Web Forms (I have only worked a lot with the MVC framework).
I am planning to store some data in the control state. All the examples I can find put an object[] array in the control state and the base control state on the 0 index.
I don't really like putting everything in an object[], so I wanted to create an extra class for my web part with typed properties: e.g. MyWebPartControlState. I will store the base control state in a property BaseControlState of type object.
I was wondering if this could cause any problems or if there are any other reasons why this might not be a good idea. I am wondering because it feels logical to me, but I cannot find any examples of control state where they don't put everything in the control state directly or in a object[].
Thanks in advance.
The control state is persisted in the same field as view state and follows the same rules for serialization. All the samples you found use an object array because that's one of the types the optimized state serializer in ASP.NET understands and for which is able to optimize serialization.
If you use a custom object the serializer won't use the optimizations and instead will serialize your object using the BinaryFormatter which will lead to bloated control state. If you want to have a strongly typed view of your state you should implement IStateManager on your custom class so that it encapsulates the transformation of itself from and to simple objects that the serializer understands.
If I recall correctly the serializer can efficiently serialize the following types:
Primitive types (int, long, etc);
DateTime;
string;
Boxed values of supported value types;
Object arrays containing instances of supported types;
Pair and Triplet objects containing instances of supported types.
I wrote a short blogpost illustrating the differences in size resulting from a simple custom class being serialized with BinaryFormatter versus implementing IStateManager and decomposing to simple types that the serializer can optimize. You can find it at:
ASP.NET ViewState Tips and Tricks #2

Determining which properties to serialize in a class that's passed over a webservice

I'm using NHibernate to administer my entities, and to have lazy loading enabled I need to make my properties return an IList<>. Problem is that .NET throws an exception as it can't serialize an interface when I'm trying to pass the entity. This makes perfect sense.
What I need to know is how I can control which fields to serialize, and which not to? My best bet so far is to work around this problem by copying the contents of IList<> into a List<> before serializing the object, but to do that I need to tell .NET that I don't want the IList<> property serialized :)
Just wanted to let you guys know that I found the answer to be the
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlIgnore] attribute :)
MSDN has an area on Serializing Objects, but what you want is Selective Serialization. So basically, you can mark any property you don't want serialized with the attribute, [NonSerialized]. There is an example in the second link.

Resources