format the xml output

Question

I am using this method to transform an object to XML:

protected XmlDocument SerializeAnObject(object obj)
{
    XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument();
    DataContractSerializer serializer = new DataContractSerializer(obj.GetType());
    MemoryStream stream = new MemoryStream();
    try
    {
        serializer.WriteObject(stream, obj);
        stream.Position = 0;
        doc.Load(stream);
        return doc;
    }
    finally
    {
        stream.Close();
        stream.Dispose();
    }
}

Eventually I get something like:

<CaCT>
  <CTC i:nil="true" xmlns="http://schemas.datacontract.org/2004/07/a.b.BusinessEntities.InnerEntities" /> 
  <CTDescr xmlns="http://schemas.datacontract.org/2004/07/a.b.BusinessEntities.InnerEntities">blabla</CTDescr> 
  <CaId>464</CaId> 
  </CaCT>

How can I get rid of the i:nil="true" and the xmlns="http://schemas.datacontract.org/2004/07/a.b.BusinessEntities.InnerEntities"?

A: what is the object? How can we help if we can't see it? B: for fine-grained XML control, XmlSerializer is generally preferable to DataContractSerializer — Marc Gravell
– Marc Gravell, Commented Oct 16, 2011 at 8:01
@Marc Gravell: But XmlSerializer don't know how to handle interfaces like IEnumerable. — Naor
– Naor, Commented Oct 16, 2011 at 8:07
if I had to compare the features of the two, the lack of IEnumerable (easily circumvented with lists etc) would pale into insignificance compared to, say, the inability to control attributes. — Marc Gravell
– Marc Gravell, Commented Oct 16, 2011 at 8:11

Jon Skeet · Accepted Answer · 2011-10-16 07:52:20Z

2

Personally I've always found that hand-written XML serialization with LINQ to XML works well. It's as flexible as you want, you can make it backward and forward compatible in whatever way you want, and obviously you don't end up with any extra namespaces or attributes that you don't want.

Obviously it becomes more complicated the more complicated your classes are, but I've found it works very well for simple classes. It's at least an alternative to consider.

answered Oct 16, 2011 at 7:52

Jon Skeet

1.5m893 gold badges9.3k silver badges9.3k bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

9 Comments

Naor Over a year ago

I need a generic method that receives an object. I cannot write a serializer for each type.

Jon Skeet Over a year ago

@Naor: Do you mean you don't know what types you'll expect? How many types might there be? If you want it to be truly generic and only ever written and read by code, why do you care about the namespace etc appearing in the XML?

Naor Over a year ago

I have more them 30 types to serialize. For some reasons I don't know, the namespace appearing in the XML prevent me to transform the data with xslt file.

Jon Skeet Over a year ago

@Naor: If you're using automated serialization I would steer well clear of using XSLT with it at all - although it should be entirely possible to use XSLT with namespaced XML.

Marc Gravell Over a year ago

@Naor - namespaces do indeed make xslt more awkward, but that is true of all xml operations (not just xslt); it should be entirely possible to use xslt - but probably not necessary unless you have needs you haven't stated

|

L.B · Accepted Answer · 2011-10-16 10:18:35Z

2

protected string SerializeAnObject(object obj)
{
    XmlSerializerNamespaces xmlNamespaces = new XmlSerializerNamespaces();
    xmlNamespaces.Add("", "");

    XmlWriterSettings writerSettings = new XmlWriterSettings();
    writerSettings.OmitXmlDeclaration = true;

    XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(obj.GetType());
    using (MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream())
    {
        using (XmlWriter stream = XmlWriter.Create(ms, writerSettings))
        {
            serializer.Serialize(stream, obj, xmlNamespaces);
            return Encoding.UTF8.GetString(ms.ToArray());
        }
    }
}

answered Oct 16, 2011 at 10:18

L.B

116k20 gold badges189 silver badges229 bronze badges

1 Comment

Marc Gravell Over a year ago

Minor note - you could serialize to a StringEriter or similar with less indirection - but this is essentially how I would approach it, too.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

format the xml output

2 Answers 2

9 Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

9 Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related