Readonly collection support in DataContractSerializer?

Just getting to grips with the new (to me) DataContractSerializer
through WCF and my class is failing to serialize because a [DataMember]
doesn't have a setter. But there's a good reason for this - the
property is a readonly collection, you know...

private List<SomeType> _things = new List<SomeType>();

[DataMember]
public List<SomeType> Things
{
get { return _things; }
}

The old XmlSerializer used to understand this and play nicely but the
DataContract serializer doesn't seem to want to.

Any ideas? Am I missing an attribute somewhere?

You do can continue to use XmlSerializer if it's good for you
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...efault.aspx#S4
Arkady

"MrAnon" <josh.twist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162992886.697261.198840@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just getting to grips with the new (to me) DataContractSerializer
> through WCF and my class is failing to serialize because a [DataMember]
> doesn't have a setter. But there's a good reason for this - the
> property is a readonly collection, you know...
>
> private List<SomeType> _things = new List<SomeType>();
>
> [DataMember]
> public List<SomeType> Things
> {
> get { return _things; }
> }
>
> The old XmlSerializer used to understand this and play nicely but the
> DataContract serializer doesn't seem to want to.
>
> Any ideas? Am I missing an attribute somewhere?
>

Thanks Arkady,

I am aware of that option but I'm wondering if it's possible to
configure the DataContract Serializer to be happy with this...

Anyone?

Additionally : you can set empty setter to be it happy
Arkady

"MrAnon" <josh.twist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163003829.126813.163320@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks Arkady,
>
> I am aware of that option but I'm wondering if it's possible to
> configure the DataContract Serializer to be happy with this...
>
> Anyone?
>

But the serializer will add things to the collection that we ignored...
so my collection will always be emtpy


Arkady Frenkel wrote:

> Additionally : you can set empty setter to be it happy
> Arkady
>
> "MrAnon" <josh.twist@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163003829.126813.163320@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks Arkady,
> >
> > I am aware of that option but I'm wondering if it's possible to
> > configure the DataContract Serializer to be happy with this...
> >
> > Anyone?
> >

BTW , you can ask additionally if that documented somewhere on
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sho...D=118&SiteID=1
Arkady

"MrAnon" <josh.twist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163677111.476397.14850@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> But the serializer will add things to the collection that we ignored...
> so my collection will always be emtpy
>
>
> Arkady Frenkel wrote:
>
>> Additionally : you can set empty setter to be it happy
>> Arkady
>>
>> "MrAnon" <josh.twist@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1163003829.126813.163320@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Thanks Arkady,
>> >
>> > I am aware of that option but I'm wondering if it's possible to
>> > configure the DataContract Serializer to be happy with this...
>> >
>> > Anyone?
>> >
>

MrAnon,

The behavior for DataContractSerializer mentioned below is currently by
design. Using an empty setter, as mentioned later in the thread will result
in data lost during deserialization.

Thanks,
Sara

"MrAnon" wrote:

> Just getting to grips with the new (to me) DataContractSerializer
> through WCF and my class is failing to serialize because a [DataMember]
> doesn't have a setter. But there's a good reason for this - the
> property is a readonly collection, you know...
>
> private List<SomeType> _things = new List<SomeType>();
>
> [DataMember]
> public List<SomeType> Things
> {
> get { return _things; }
> }
>
> The old XmlSerializer used to understand this and play nicely but the
> DataContract serializer doesn't seem to want to.
>
> Any ideas? Am I missing an attribute somewhere?
>
>