CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#.net
Alexander
Alexander

Reputation: 20224

E pluribus unum: merge objects into one

I have a predefined data format, which requires me to have an object like this:

settings:{
    settingA:'someValueFromSql',
    settingB:'someValueFromAD'
    settingC:'someValueFromConfigFile',
    settingD:'someValueFromReflection',
    settingE:42,
    ...
}

This settings object is in fact a huge mess of data stitched together from many different sources, but this is how the data is expected by the frontend. I'd like to put the "get/process all data from one source" in a function each, and tape the object together in the end.

So I would have one object

sqlSettings:{
    settingA:'someValueFromSql',
    settingG:'someOtherValueFromSql',
    ...
}

returned by function a, and an object 

adSettings:{
    settingB:'someValueFromAD',
    settingV:'someOtherValueFromAD',
    ...
}

returned by function b, and an object

settings includes adSettings, sqlSettings

where, with at most two simple steps, I can "join together" both objects into a flat third object.

Is this possible with fixed-size objects, without using a generic Dictionary, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

(I'm sure this question was already asked on SO, but I guess I don't find the right words)

Upvotes: 2

Views: 130

Answers (2)

giammin
giammin

Reputation: 18958

It's not possible with a "normal" object, but you can do it with an ExpandoObject and the dynamic keyword. But you need at least .net 4.0

dynamic settings = new ExpandoObject();
//If you try to assign a property that doesn't exist, it is added to the object.
settings.SettingA="sfgd"

Anyway I discourage using this approach. why you don't want to use a IDictionary<string, object> or better a IDictionary<string, MyCustomSettingObject>

--------------------UPDATE---------------------

if the only thing that stops you from using a dictionary is the serialization you can implement the IXmlSerializable Interface and ouput the xml you like:

Proper way to implement IXmlSerializable?

Upvotes: 4

Santhos
Santhos

Reputation: 3498

If those partial setting objects have fixed size (meaning fixed number of properties), then you can definitely create a flat object with e.g. only properties to fit all the values in. Then to ease your work, you can try to use Automapper to map the partial objects to the "grouped" object.

http://automapper.codeplex.com/

Otherwise, you will have to stick with the dictionary.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions