Re: Serializing Dictionaries
Peter Ritchie <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.windows.devel.dotnet.clr |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <LISTSERV%[email protected]> |
Do you mean IXmlSerializable? You only need to implement IXmlSerializable if you want to override how XmlSerializer serializers that type. For example, if you can't completely rehydrate a type based solely on the public fields/properties. If you have a read/write public String field/property in your type, XmlSerializer will serialize it if the type doesn't implement IXmlSerializable. On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:06:12 +0200, Brady Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: >I have an object graph in which most nodes contain generic Dictionary >objects of other classes. After looking at IXmlSerializer I can't decide >whether to go this route, or just derive all my dictionaries from a >serializable dictionary. If I implement IXmlSerializer, I would then >require each element of my dictionary to also implement this interface, so I >can call WriteXml on each one, but what happens if the dictionary element is >a built-in type, such as string? =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com