Simon Horrell pointed something out to a bunch of us the other day that I thought was quite interesting. It has to do with the [XmlInclude()] attribute that's part of the System.Xml.Serialization stuff. Ordinarily, you use it on a base type to indicate that when serializing instances of that type, they might really be instances of one or more subtypes. This allows the serialization engine to emit a schema that reflects the possibility of really getting a Derived when the type signature is Base. For example, consider the following web service:
<%@ WebService class="Service" Language="C#" %>
public class Animal {
public int legs;
}
public class Mammal : Animal {
public int nipples;
}
public class Service {
[WebMethod]
public Animal GetAnimal() {
return new Mammal();
}
}
Note that GetAnimal is typed to return an Animal, but actually returns a Mammal. Well, if you were to look at the XML that came back from this method, you might be surprised to see that it looks like this:
<Animal>
<legs>8</legs>
</Animal>
You'll observe that this result does not contain any mention of nipples - the “Mammalness” has been lost. Which makes sense - from an XML standpoint, you told me that the operation returns a type that just has legs.
One way we can “fix” this to give a result more in keeping with our OO expectations is to use the XmlInclude attribute on the base type, to list all the types that we might wind up substituting. It looks like this:
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlInclude(typeof(Mammal))]
public class Animal {
public int legs;
}
And if we run our web service now, we get this XML back:
<Animal xsi:type="Mammal">
<legs>2</legs>
<nipples>3</nipples>
</Animal>
Note the presence of the xsi:type attribute, which says, “This thing is actually a Mammal.” If you're generating a .NET proxy using VS.NET's Add Web Reference or the wsdl.exe command line tool, you'll even find that when you check the type of the object that comes back from the web service call, it's a Mammal, which derives from Animal. This is possible because in the schema for the web service, there's a bit that says that a Mammal is an extension (an XML schema term) of Animal.
If you're an OO person, however, you probably don't like the fact that you have to hang that XmlInclude attribute off the base type. The idea that a base type has to know about its derived types in advance is, well, just plain weird. This is where Simon comes in. He pointed out that you can actually put the XmlInclude attribute on the method instead of the base type. So if we change our web service to look like this instead:
<%@ WebService class="Service" Language="C#" %>
public class Animal {
public int legs;
}
public class Mammal : Animal {
public int nipples;
}
public class Service {
[System.Web.Services.WebMethod]
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlInclude(typeof(Mammal))]
public Animal GetAnimal() {
return new Mammal();
}
}
We'll get the same result (i.e. it'll have legs and nipples and use the xsi:type attribute) as putting the attribute on the Animal type. But putting it on the method is much more attractive from a code point of view, since it doesn't bake assumptions about type derivation into the base type. Rather, you put them on the method, where you probably have a good idea about what exact types are being returned.
Now, that said, I wouldn't write web services using this. Why not? Because if you care about interoperability, writing schemas that make use of extension elements and xsi:type isn't exactly “polite“. You don't know what technology your clients will be written in, and not all languages even have type derivation. Those that do, don't necessarily take the same view of it as C#. And even if they do, not all toolkits are smart enough yet to both map the XSD extension correctly and to look for the xsi:type attri
Posted
Jul 08 2004, 11:39 AM
by
craig-andera