WCF：MessageContract，DataContract ...困惑？ [英] WCF: MessageContract, DataContract ... Confused?
问题描述
我在写我的第一个WCF服务。我决定，我现在所在写服务只是作为一个DLL来开始，然后方面WCF的东西之后上是。
I'm writing my first WCF service. I decided to write the service just as a DLL to begin with and then aspect the WCF stuff on afterwards which is where I am now.
我被那我要坚持，我也做了消息对象的特定格式建筑师建议。不过我用的接口，复杂类型，并列出它们在我的消息对象。我来上添加属性，我变得有点糊涂了。
I was advised by the architect that I should stick to a specific format for message objects which I have done. However I've used Interfaces, complex types and lists thereof in my message objects. I'm coming to adding the attributes on and I'm getting a bit confused.
下面是我的code的显示例子。
Here's a show example of my code.
[ServiceContract]
public interface MyServiceContract
{
[OperationContract]
MyMethodResponseMessage MyMethod(MyMethodRequestMessage request);
}
public class MyService : MyServiceContract
{
public MyMethodResponseMessage MyMethod(MyMethodRequestMessage request)
{
//Do things
}
}
//Messages
[MessageContract]
public class MyMethodResponseMessage
{
[MessageBodyMember]
public MyMethodResponse Body { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class MyMethodResponse
{
[DataMember]
public IMyComplexTypeItem { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public List<IMyComplexType> Items { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public bool Success { get; set; }
}
//DTO
public interface IMyComplexType
{
[DataMember]
string Identity { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class MyComplexType1 : IMyComplexType
{
[DataMember]
public virtual string Identity
}
任何人都可以在使用MessageContract，DataContract，数据成员和序列化等的正确性有何评论？任何指针或明显的错误是什么？
Can anyone comment on the correctness in the use of MessageContract, DataContract, DataMember and Serializable etc? Any pointers or glaring mistakes?
另外这串是用最好的？什么是确保我从这个得到良好的XML，以便其他客户端可以轻松地使用我的服务最好的策略？
Also which serializer is the best one to use? and what is the best strategy to ensure I get well formed XML from this so that other clients can consume my service easily?
推荐答案
重新请求/响应 - 一个 [DataContract] 将工作一样好。之一的消息的合同的一个优点是，可以设置隐私针对成员，但在许多情况下，这是没有必要的。在这种情况下，我preFER守合同尽可能的简单，就像一个数据的合同。
Re the request/response - a [DataContract] would work just as well. One of the advantages of message-contracts is that you can set privacy against members, but in many cases this isn't necessary. In such cases, I prefer to keep the contract as simple as possible, just as a data-contract.
重新其中串行器 - 这在很大程度上是结构的一个因素。默认情况下通过HTTP，例如，这将是的DataContractSerializer 。
Re which serializer - that is largely a factor of the configuration. By default over http, for example, it will be DataContractSerializer.
我不知道，但是， IMyComplexType 列表会工作得很好。你可以尝试，但一般就是了具体类型。需要注意的是与基础类可以使用 [KnownType] 来指定允许的子类型。
I'm not sure, however, that the list of IMyComplexType is going to work very well. You could try, but generally it wants concrete types. Note that with base-classes you can use [KnownType] to specify the allowed sub-types.
请注意，不像的XmlSerializer ，它不是集合成员有制定者的要求 - 尽管你可能需要添加一个 OnDeserializing 回调方法如果你这样做（WCF不调用构造函数）来初始化列表中。
Note that unlike XmlSerializer, it is not a requirement for collection members to have setters - although you might need to add an OnDeserializing callback method to initialize the list if you do that (WCF doesn't call constructors).
另外：你也可以使用 protobuf网具有数据合同和WCF（如只要它们具有一个明确的顺序）;这更是密密麻麻比常规XML。它拥有目前消息合约的支持，虽然。
Aside: you can also use protobuf-net with data-contracts and WCF (as long as they have an explicit Order); this is more densely packed than the regular xml. It has no support for message-contracts at the moment, though.
这篇关于WCF：MessageContract，DataContract ...困惑？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
