WCF with XmlSerializer: namespace collision when returning generic contracts

Question

The background

I'm developing a REST API for a C#.NET web application using WCF. I configured it to use the XmlSerializer rather than its default DataContractSerializer, for greater control over the XML format. I created a generic ResponseContract<TResponse, TErrorCode> data contract, which wraps the response with <Api> and <Response> for generic data like request status, error messages, and namespaces. An example method:

ResponseContract<ItemListContract, ItemListErrorCode> GetItemList(...)

An example response from the above method:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Api xmlns="http://example.com/api/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"&gt;
   <Response Status="OKAY" ErrorCode="OKAY" ErrorText="">
      <Data Template="ItemList">
         <Pages Template="Pagination" Size="10" Index="1" Count="13" Items="126" />
         <Items>
            <Item example="..." />
            <Item example="..." />
            <Item example="..." />
        </Items>
      </Data>
   </Response>
</Api>

The problem

This works very well for services whose methods all have the same generic ResponseContract types. WCF or XmlSerializer expects each contract to have a unique name within its namespace, but the service is now returning a generic contract with different types having the same XML root name:

ResponseContract<ItemListContract, ItemListErrorCode> GetItemList(...)
ResponseContract<ItemContract, ItemErrorCode> GetItem(...)

With the resulting exception:

The top XML element 'Api' from namespace 'http://example.com/api/' references distinct types Company.Product.ApiServer.Contracts.ResponseContract`2[Company.Product.ApiServer.Contracts.Items.ItemListContract,Company.Product.ApiServer.Interfaces.Items.ItemListErrorCode] and Company.Product.ApiServer.Contracts.ResponseContract`2[Company.Product.ApiServer.Contracts.Items.ItemContract,Company.Product.ApiServer.Items.ItemErrorCode]. Use XML attributes to specify another XML name or namespace for the element or types.

The service must allow different return types. This is difficult to achieve because the ResponseContract<TResponse, TErrorCode> (which sets the name & namespace) is generic and returned by all API methods. I also need to maintain WSDL metadata integrity, which means no dynamic changes using reflection.

Attempted solutions

1. Changing the XML attributes declaratively is not possible, since the <Api> root element and its attributes are completely generic (in ResponseContract).

2. Changing the attribute namespace at runtime using reflection (eg, 'http://example.com/api/Items/GetItemList') has no effect. It's possible to get attributes, but changes to them have no effect. This would break WSDL anyway.

3. When implementing IXmlSerializable, the writer is already positioned after the <Api> start tag when WriteXml() is invoked. It's only possible to override the serialization of <Api>'s child nodes, which cause no problem anyway. This wouldn't work anyway, since the exception is thrown before the IXmlSerializable methods are called.

4. Concatenating the constant namespace with typeof() or similar to make it unique doesn't work, because the namespace must be a constant.

5. The default DataContractSerializer can insert type names into the name (like <ApiOfIdeaList>), but DataContractSerializer's output is bloated and unreadable and lacks attributes, which is not feasible for the external reusers.

6. Extending XmlRootAttribute to generate the namespace differently. Unfortunately there is no type information available when it's invoked, only the generic ResponseContract data. It's possible to generate a random namespace to circumvent the problem, but dynamically changing the schema breaks the WSDL metadata.

7. Making ResponseContract a base class instead of a wrapper contract should work, but would result in a lot of duplicated generic data. For example, <Pages> and <Item> in the example above are also contracts, which would have their own equivalent <Api> and <Response> elements.

Conclusion

Any ideas?

Answer 1

I got the tumbleweed badge for this one!

I abandoned the described approach because I couldn't find a viable solution. Instead, every contract inherits a nullable QueryStatus<TErrorCode> property from the generic BaseContract<TContract, TErrorCode>. This property is populated automatically for the main contract, and null for subcontracts.