I have a requirement to map all of the field values and child collections between ObjectV1 and ObjectV2 by field name. ObjectV2 is in a different namspace to ObjectV1.
Inheritence between the template ClassV1 and ClassV2 has been discounted as these 2 classes need to evolve independently. I have considered using both reflection (which is slow) and binary serialisation (which is also slow) to perform the mapping of the common properties.
Is there a preferred approach? Are there any other alternatives?
If speed is an issue you could take the reflection process offline and generate code for the mapping of the common properties. You could do this at runtime using Lightweight Code Generation or completely offline by building C# code to compile.
As an alternative to using reflection every time, you could create a helper class which dynamically creates copy methods using Reflection.Emit - this would mean you only get the performance hit on startup. This may give you the combination of flexibility and performance that you need.
As Reflection.Emit is quite clunky, I would suggest checking out this Reflector addin, which is brilliant for building this sort of code.
You might want to take a look at AutoMapper, a library which specializes in copying values between objects. It uses convention over configuration, so if the properties really have the exaxt same names it will do almost all of the work for you.
If if you control the instantiation of the destination object, try using JavaScriptSerializer. It doesn't spit out any type information.
returns
From this it should possible to deserialize any class with the same property names.
What version of .NET is it?
For shallow copy:
In 3.5, you can pre-compile an
Expression
to do this. In 2.0, you can useHyperDescriptor
very easily to do the same. Both will vastly out-perform reflection.There is a pre-canned implementation of the
Expression
approach inMiscUtil
-PropertyCopy
:(end shallow)
BinaryFormatter (in the question) is not an option here - it simply won't work since the original and destination types are different. If the data is contract based, XmlSerializer or DataContractSerializer would work if all the contract-names match, but the two (shallow) options above would be much quicker if they are possible.
Also - if your types are marked with common serialization attributes (
XmlType
orDataContract
), then protobuf-net can (in some cases) do a deep-copy / change-type for you:But this depends on the types having very similar schemas (in fact, it doesn't use the names, it uses the explicit "Order" etc on the attributes)
Here is a solution which I built: