Serializing and Deserializing Objects…to and from…XML

re: Serializing and Deserializing Objects…to and from…XML

sirdneo — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:43:36 GMT

I generally use extension methods to Serilize and De-Serlize objetcs to XML. Thanks for sharing

Serializing and Deserializing Objects…to and from…XML - Steve Wellens

DotNetShoutout — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:21:03 GMT

Thank you for submitting this cool story - Trackback from DotNetShoutout

re: Serializing and Deserializing Objects…to and from…XML

flalar — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:46:35 GMT

You could also use generics for serialization

public static string Serialize<T>(T objectToSerialize, XmlSerializer serializer) where T : new()

{

StringBuilder stringBuilder = new StringBuilder();

using (XmlWriter xmlWriter = XmlWriter.Create(stringBuilder))

{

serializer.Serialize(xmlWriter, objectToSerialize);

xmlWriter.Flush();

}

return stringBuilder.ToString();

}

re: Serializing and Deserializing Objects…to and from…XML

Jv — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:13:35 GMT

Why not use this instead: support.microsoft.com/.../815813 ? It's native .NET

re: Serializing and Deserializing Objects…to and from…XML

SGWellens — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:07:03 GMT

If a field is added to the class, the reconstitution of an object from an old XML string will ignore the new field. However, you can create a default constructor that initializes new fields to their desired defaults.

This is much better than doing a binary serialization where you would need to write a conversion program each time a new version was issued.

re: Serializing and Deserializing Objects…to and from…XML

Dave — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:34:13 GMT

What if a field is added to the class after the xml file is created. Will it throw an error if its missing in the xml when you try to reconstitute it?

If it does throw the error will it say what field is missing?

re: Serializing and Deserializing Objects…to and from…XML

Scott Allen — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:57:14 GMT

I think a generic parameter on deserialize would be nice, because the caller would not have to cast the return value, and you'd have a cleaner method signature. The type coercion would be hidden inside deserialize.

public static T DeSerialize<T>(string XmlOfAnObject)

{

...

return (T)anObject;

...

}

Gives you:

var foo = Deserialize<Bar>(xml);