Andrés G. Aragoneses [ knocte ] wrote: > Atsushi Eno escribió: > >>> Do you mean that current SVN is broken in this scenario, or that you >>> don't like the API? >>> >> I mean, the behavior (almost equal to the API). >> >> Try to serialize a class which contains members which is ISerializable. >> The serialization is then not contract based anymore. >> > > But, would this affect me if I don't use ISerializable interface in my > classes?? I ask this because my desire would be to have no need to > implement custom serialization for each of my classes. In fact, what I > want to be able to do is to XMLserialize my cyclic objects without > writing more code. > As long as it is not really used, No. BTW without adding data contract attributes you can't really use indigo serialization. > BTW, ISerializable AFAIK is for binary serialization, not XML. Does it > then have any influence in the case we are discussing? > Yes, it affects on indigo serialization. (that's why I mentioned it here ;-)
Atsushi Eno _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
