问题:我有Dictionary<String, String>
我需要别名,但我还需要序列化/反序列化。
我尝试过的解决方案:
class Foo : Dictionary<String, String> { }
但是这样做是因为我必须创建一个Deserialization构造函数,当Dictionary已经被反序列化时,这会有点傻。
我也试过
using Foo = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<String, String>;
但我需要这个工作在更多的那个文件中,如果在所有需要它的文件中添加该行,我将删除typedef的一半(即,如果我需要更改类型,我可以轻松地做到这一点)
我该怎么办?
答案 0 :(得分:6)
使用别名方法保留了属性,但是您声明开销过多(每个文件等)。
类型级属性 一般保留 - 但它取决于属性 - 对于[Serializable]
,请注意它具有:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Struct
| AttributeTargets.Enum | AttributeTargets.Delegate, Inherited = false)]
Inherited = false
是重要的 - 即它不是遗传的。
就我个人而言,我可能会专注于在第一个例子中使序列化ctor / callbacks工作 - 我怀疑它需要更多的努力。以下似乎很好:
[Serializable]
public class Foo: Dictionary<string, string> {
public Foo() : base() { }
public Foo(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context) : base(info, context) { }
public Foo(int capacity) : base(capacity) { }
public Foo(IEqualityComparer<string> comparer): base(comparer) {}
public Foo(IDictionary<string,string> dictionary) : base(dictionary) { }
public Foo(int capacity, IEqualityComparer<string> comparer) : base(capacity, comparer) { }
public Foo(IDictionary<string, string> dictionary, IEqualityComparer<string> comparer) : base(dictionary, comparer) { }
}
然而,这是封装的另一种选择:
[Serializable]
public class Foo : IDictionary<string,string>
{
private readonly Dictionary<string, string> inner = new Dictionary<string, string>();
public void Add(string key, string value)
{
inner.Add(key, value);
}
public bool ContainsKey(string key)
{
return inner.ContainsKey(key);
}
public ICollection<string> Keys
{
get { return inner.Keys; }
}
public bool Remove(string key)
{
return inner.Remove(key);
}
public bool TryGetValue(string key, out string value)
{
return inner.TryGetValue(key, out value);
}
public ICollection<string> Values
{
get { return inner.Values; }
}
public string this[string key]
{
get
{
return inner[key];
}
set
{
inner[key] = value;
}
}
void ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>>.Add(KeyValuePair<string, string> item)
{
((IDictionary<string,string>)inner).Add(item);
}
public void Clear()
{
inner.Clear();
}
bool ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>>.Contains(KeyValuePair<string, string> item)
{
return ((IDictionary<string, string>)inner).Contains(item);
}
void ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>>.CopyTo(KeyValuePair<string, string>[] array, int arrayIndex)
{
((IDictionary<string, string>)inner).CopyTo(array, arrayIndex);
}
public int Count
{
get { return inner.Count; }
}
bool ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>>.IsReadOnly
{
get { return ((IDictionary<string, string>)inner).IsReadOnly; }
}
bool ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>>.Remove(KeyValuePair<string, string> item)
{
return ((IDictionary<string, string>)inner).Remove(item);
}
public IEnumerator<KeyValuePair<string, string>> GetEnumerator()
{
return inner.GetEnumerator();
}
System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return inner.GetEnumerator();
}
}
答案 1 :(得分:1)
嗯“当字典已经被反序列化时,这会有点傻。”我不会说在任何情况下(几乎)在任何情况下调用一个基础ctor是愚蠢的+它是1分钟的努力,所以我会说这样做...
[Serializable]
public class Foo : Dictionary<string, string>
{
public Foo()
: base()
{
}
public Foo(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
: base(info, context)
{
}
}
或
[Serializable]
public class Foo<TKey,TValue> : Dictionary<TKey,TValue>
{
public Foo()
: base()
{
}
public Foo(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
: base(info, context)
{
}
}