问题
I get that protobuf do not support inheritance, and since I am using protoc-c on another end, I do not want to use any extensions as well. However, I am stuck with a C# model that depends on inheritance:
class Header {
public int version { get; set; }
}
class Message : Header {
public String message { get; set; }
}
I attempted to switch the inheritance into encapsulation in the wire format to something like this:
[ProtoContract]
class Header {
[ProtoMember(1)]
public int version { get; set; }
}
[ProtoContract]
class Message : Header {
[ProtoMember(1)]
public Header Header { get { return this; } set { } }
[ProtoMember(2)]
public String Message { get; set; }
}
Then I get the "Unexpected sub-type" error which prompts me to: Why I have to use [ProtoInclude]?
I feel that my case is different than the case in the above question, so would like to ask again for my specific case, where I have tried to inside out the inheritance, is this impossible to do without having ProtoInclude?
If not, how would I do it in v2?
----- EDITED ------
My proto file in the C (using protobuf-c) side is something like this:
message Header {
optional int32 version = 1;
}
message Message {
optional Header header = 1;
optional string message = 2;
}
I do not want to put the Message inside the Header, and I do not want the inheritance-over-the-wire feature. This format enables me to add stuffs into the Header message easily without needing to change the Message message.
回答1:
With the edit: no, that scenario is not directly supported - protobuf-net is highly aware of inheritance, and isn't very amenable to ignoring it. This seems such an unusual case that I'm not desperate to add it, and I thing the return this; getter and no-op setter would cause additional downstream complications (not bugs, since it isn't expected to support that) which could be pretty hard to rectify.
I would advise using a model that is similar to the structure you want to represent. If this isn't directly possible, you can use a surrogate instead. The following works and retains both your intended wire-structure and the existing type inheritance:
using ProtoBuf;
using ProtoBuf.Meta;
// DTO model - maps directly to the wire layout
[ProtoContract]
class HeaderDto
{
[ProtoMember(1)]
public int Version { get; set; }
}
[ProtoContract]
class MessageDto
{
[ProtoMember(1)]
public HeaderDto Header { get { return header;}}
private readonly HeaderDto header = new HeaderDto();
[ProtoMember(2)]
public string Message { get; set; }
// the operators (implicit or explicit) are used to map between the
// primary type (Message) and the surrogate type (MessageDto)
public static implicit operator Message(MessageDto value)
{
return value == null ? null : new Message {
version = value.Header.Version, message = value.Message };
}
public static implicit operator MessageDto(Message value)
{
return value == null ? null : new MessageDto {
Message = value.message, Header = { Version = value.version } };
}
}
// domain model
class Header
{
public int version { get; set; }
}
class Message : Header
{
public string message { get; set; }
}
// example
static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
// configure the surrogate
RuntimeTypeModel.Default.Add(typeof(Message), false)
.SetSurrogate(typeof(MessageDto));
Message msg = new Message { version = 1, message = "abc" };
var obj = Serializer.DeepClone(msg);
}
}
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11947299/protobuf-net-inheritance-in-c-sharp-but-not-in-wire-format