Hi all,

I am using a class to transport some data over the
network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute to the
class.

My problem is that this class is part of a framework and
that I do not want developers to call empty constructors.
But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
empty constructor such as:

public MyClass(){}

Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that using
the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
implement an empty constructor?

Thanks for the help.

Amadrias

I'm not exactly sure, but I think it will work even if you define the empty
constructor as private or protected.

Hope this helps,

Trev.


"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
>
> I am using a class to transport some data over the
> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute to the
> class.
>
> My problem is that this class is part of a framework and
> that I do not want developers to call empty constructors.
> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
> empty constructor such as:
>
> public MyClass(){}
>
> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that using
> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
> implement an empty constructor?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Amadrias

You could write your own serializer and de-serializer, but this would be
quite some work...

--
Greetz,
Jan
________________________
Read my weblog: http://weblogs.asp.net/jan

"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
>
> I am using a class to transport some data over the
> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute to the
> class.
>
> My problem is that this class is part of a framework and
> that I do not want developers to call empty constructors.
> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
> empty constructor such as:
>
> public MyClass(){}
>
> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that using
> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
> implement an empty constructor?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Amadrias

Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor as private
or protected, it can not be called by the .Net framework
and then it doesn't work...

Still needs the empty constructor...

Thanks anyway...

Amadrias

>-----Original Message-----
>I'm not exactly sure, but I think it will work even if
you define the empty
>constructor as private or protected.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>Trev.
>
>
>"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am using a class to transport some data over the
>> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute to
the
>> class.
>>
>> My problem is that this class is part of a framework
and
>> that I do not want developers to call empty
constructors.
>> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
>> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
>> empty constructor such as:
>>
>> public MyClass(){}
>>
>> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that using
>> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
>> implement an empty constructor?
>>
>> Thanks for the help.
>>
>> Amadrias
>
>
>.
>

Amadrias,
As Codemonkey suggested:

> private MyClass(){}

Or if this is a base class, use protected.

> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that using
> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
> implement an empty constructor?
ISerializable requires a special parameterized constructor, that requires
logic in it to do the deserialization itself!

The following three part article covers binary serialization in detail:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/04/net/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/net/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/09/net/

Hope this helps
Jay

"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
>
> I am using a class to transport some data over the
> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute to the
> class.
>
> My problem is that this class is part of a framework and
> that I do not want developers to call empty constructors.
> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
> empty constructor such as:
>
> public MyClass(){}
>
> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that using
> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
> implement an empty constructor?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Amadrias

> Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor
> as private or protected, it can not be
> called by the .Net framework
> and then it doesn't work...

Are you sure about this? I seem to remember having a problem like this
myself in the past that required me to have the empty constructor. The help
seemed to suggest that the framework used reflection to call the
constructor - thus it didn't matter if it was private or public scope.

If I can find the article, I'll post it here. If you get it working in the
meantime, let me know.

As Jay mentioned, ISerializable requires the following constructor:

--------------

Protected Sub New(ByVal info As
System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationInfo, ByVal context As
System.Runtime.Serialization.StreamingContext)


End Sub

--------------

In this constructor, use the "info" parameter to deserialize your class.

Hope this helps,

Trev.

"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:05f401c3ce13$872d9dc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor as private
> or protected, it can not be called by the .Net framework
> and then it doesn't work...
>
> Still needs the empty constructor...
>
> Thanks anyway...
>
> Amadrias
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I'm not exactly sure, but I think it will work even if
> you define the empty
> >constructor as private or protected.
> >
> >Hope this helps,
> >
> >Trev.
> >
> >
> >"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am using a class to transport some data over the
> >> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute to
> the
> >> class.
> >>
> >> My problem is that this class is part of a framework
> and
> >> that I do not want developers to call empty
> constructors.
> >> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
> >> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
> >> empty constructor such as:
> >>
> >> public MyClass(){}
> >>
> >> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that using
> >> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
> >> implement an empty constructor?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the help.
> >>
> >> Amadrias
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Thanks Trev.

I am not completely sure about it but I already met this
problem before. And trying to solve it, I did try both
solutions:

1. Use the private empty constructor.
Result: Runtime Exception: asking for empty constructor.

2. Implement ISerializable using SerializationInfo
Result: Runtime Exception: asking for empty constructor.

I also tried to put both at the same time and it didn't
work neither.

As I mentionned above, it has been some months since I
tried this and it worth trying it again.

I'll keep you updated about it...

Amadrias

>-----Original Message-----
>> Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor
>> as private or protected, it can not be
>> called by the .Net framework
>> and then it doesn't work...
>
>Are you sure about this? I seem to remember having a
problem like this
>myself in the past that required me to have the empty
constructor. The help
>seemed to suggest that the framework used reflection to
call the
>constructor - thus it didn't matter if it was private or
public scope.
>
>If I can find the article, I'll post it here. If you get
it working in the
>meantime, let me know.
>
>As Jay mentioned, ISerializable requires the following
constructor:
>
>--------------
>
>Protected Sub New(ByVal info As
>System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationInfo, ByVal
context As
>System.Runtime.Serialization.StreamingContext)
>
>
>End Sub
>
>--------------
>
>In this constructor, use the "info" parameter to
deserialize your class.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>Trev.
>
>"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:05f401c3ce13$872d9dc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor as
private
>> or protected, it can not be called by the .Net
framework
>> and then it doesn't work...
>>
>> Still needs the empty constructor...
>>
>> Thanks anyway...
>>
>> Amadrias
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >I'm not exactly sure, but I think it will work even if
>> you define the empty
>> >constructor as private or protected.
>> >
>> >Hope this helps,
>> >
>> >Trev.
>> >
>> >
>> >"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I am using a class to transport some data over the
>> >> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute
to
>> the
>> >> class.
>> >>
>> >> My problem is that this class is part of a framework
>> and
>> >> that I do not want developers to call empty
>> constructors.
>> >> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
>> >> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
>> >> empty constructor such as:
>> >>
>> >> public MyClass(){}
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that
using
>> >> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
>> >> implement an empty constructor?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the help.
>> >>
>> >> Amadrias
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>
>.
>

Sorry it hasn't worked. If you could possibly post a short example of how to
recreate the problem (maybe a simple small class), you might be able to get
better help. A full description of the exception and stack trace might help
too. What type of exception is being thorwn? The one I've seen before is
usually a SerializationException.


"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:000a01c3ce26$38d295f0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks Trev.
>
> I am not completely sure about it but I already met this
> problem before. And trying to solve it, I did try both
> solutions:
>
> 1. Use the private empty constructor.
> Result: Runtime Exception: asking for empty constructor.
>
> 2. Implement ISerializable using SerializationInfo
> Result: Runtime Exception: asking for empty constructor.
>
> I also tried to put both at the same time and it didn't
> work neither.
>
> As I mentionned above, it has been some months since I
> tried this and it worth trying it again.
>
> I'll keep you updated about it...
>
> Amadrias
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >> Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor
> >> as private or protected, it can not be
> >> called by the .Net framework
> >> and then it doesn't work...
> >
> >Are you sure about this? I seem to remember having a
> problem like this
> >myself in the past that required me to have the empty
> constructor. The help
> >seemed to suggest that the framework used reflection to
> call the
> >constructor - thus it didn't matter if it was private or
> public scope.
> >
> >If I can find the article, I'll post it here. If you get
> it working in the
> >meantime, let me know.
> >
> >As Jay mentioned, ISerializable requires the following
> constructor:
> >
> >--------------
> >
> >Protected Sub New(ByVal info As
> >System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationInfo, ByVal
> context As
> >System.Runtime.Serialization.StreamingContext)
> >
> >
> >End Sub
> >
> >--------------
> >
> >In this constructor, use the "info" parameter to
> deserialize your class.
> >
> >Hope this helps,
> >
> >Trev.
> >
> >"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:05f401c3ce13$872d9dc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor as
> private
> >> or protected, it can not be called by the .Net
> framework
> >> and then it doesn't work...
> >>
> >> Still needs the empty constructor...
> >>
> >> Thanks anyway...
> >>
> >> Amadrias
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >I'm not exactly sure, but I think it will work even if
> >> you define the empty
> >> >constructor as private or protected.
> >> >
> >> >Hope this helps,
> >> >
> >> >Trev.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> >news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I am using a class to transport some data over the
> >> >> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute
> to
> >> the
> >> >> class.
> >> >>
> >> >> My problem is that this class is part of a framework
> >> and
> >> >> that I do not want developers to call empty
> >> constructors.
> >> >> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
> >> >> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
> >> >> empty constructor such as:
> >> >>
> >> >> public MyClass(){}
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that
> using
> >> >> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
> >> >> implement an empty constructor?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the help.
> >> >>
> >> >> Amadrias
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Amadrias,
The serialization code has the ability to call private & protected
constructors via a special option on the "reflection" call that it is using
to create the object indirectly.

See the articles in my other post for details.

Are you using Binary serialization or XML serialization?

Hope this helps
Jay

"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:05f401c3ce13$872d9dc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor as private
> or protected, it can not be called by the .Net framework
> and then it doesn't work...
>
> Still needs the empty constructor...
>
> Thanks anyway...
>
> Amadrias
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I'm not exactly sure, but I think it will work even if
> you define the empty
> >constructor as private or protected.
> >
> >Hope this helps,
> >
> >Trev.
> >
> >
> >"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am using a class to transport some data over the
> >> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute to
> the
> >> class.
> >>
> >> My problem is that this class is part of a framework
> and
> >> that I do not want developers to call empty
> constructors.
> >> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
> >> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
> >> empty constructor such as:
> >>
> >> public MyClass(){}
> >>
> >> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that using
> >> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
> >> implement an empty constructor?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the help.
> >>
> >> Amadrias
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Thanks jay,

I am doing both serialization:
- XML for clear object transportation over the network
- Binary for file serialization.

Amadrias

>-----Original Message-----
>Amadrias,
>The serialization code has the ability to call private &
protected
>constructors via a special option on the "reflection"
call that it is using
>to create the object indirectly.
>
>See the articles in my other post for details.
>
>Are you using Binary serialization or XML serialization?
>
>Hope this helps
>Jay
>
>"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:05f401c3ce13$872d9dc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Unfortunatelly, if you declare the constructor as
private
>> or protected, it can not be called by the .Net
framework
>> and then it doesn't work...
>>
>> Still needs the empty constructor...
>>
>> Thanks anyway...
>>
>> Amadrias
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >I'm not exactly sure, but I think it will work even if
>> you define the empty
>> >constructor as private or protected.
>> >
>> >Hope this helps,
>> >
>> >Trev.
>> >
>> >
>> >"Amadrias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >news:032f01c3ce0d$5e56f640$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I am using a class to transport some data over the
>> >> network. I then added the [Serializable] attribute
to
>> the
>> >> class.
>> >>
>> >> My problem is that this class is part of a framework
>> and
>> >> that I do not want developers to call empty
>> constructors.
>> >> But the runtime sends me an exception when I try to
>> >> serialize this class asking me to provide it with an
>> >> empty constructor such as:
>> >>
>> >> public MyClass(){}
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way to avoid that problem knowing that
using
>> >> the ISerializable interface, it stills ask me to
>> >> implement an empty constructor?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the help.
>> >>
>> >> Amadrias
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>
>.
>