I'm trying to code a WCF service on Monotouch/Monodevelop for IOS. I was using standard attributes like [DataMember]/[DataContract] for my serializable object and [ServiceContract]/[OperationContract] for my interface. Everything worked fine, but when I tried to implement a method returning an IEnumerable on the interface implementation (server side), it didn't worked.
So to solve my problem I tried to use the latest version of protobuf-net being protobuf-net v2 beta r404. But I'm still getting a serialization error from Protobuf-net. Note that the IEnumerable in "MyObject" serialize without problem.
Here's how my code looks right now:
MyObject:
[ProtoContract]
public class MyObject
{
public MyObject ()
{
}
[ProtoMember(1)]
public int Id {get;set;}
[ProtoMember(2)]
public IEnumerable<MyObject> myObjects {get;set;}
}
My interface (Server side on Windows):
[ServiceContract]
public interface ITouchService
{
[OperationContract, ProtoBehavior]
MyObject Execute();
[OperationContract, ProtoBehavior]
IEnumerable<MyObject> ExecuteENUM ();
}
My interface (client side on IOS, I can't add ProtoBehavior as attribute becuase it is not in the ISO dll of protobuf):
[ServiceContract]
public interface ITouchService
{
[OperationContract]
MyObject Execute();
[OperationContract]
IEnumerable<MyObject> ExecuteENUM ();
}
My interface implementation:
public class TouchService : ITouchService
{
public MyObject Execute()
{
var myObject = new MyObject() { Id = 9001 };
var myList = new List<MyObject>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
myList.Add(new MyObject() { Id = i });
}
// Will serialize
myObject.myObjects = myList;
return myObject;
}
public IEnumerable<MyObject> ExecuteENUM()
{
var myEnum = new List<MyObject>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
myEnum.Add(new MyObject() { Id = i });
}
return myEnum;
}
}
I suspect it should be possible to tweak the data-contract serializer code for that. I'll take a look.
For now: my advice would be to return an obvious concrete type that has the
IEnumerable<T>
as a property. Or maybe return aList<T>
instead, which might work.It sounds reasonable to support this scenario, though. I'll see what I can do.