E pluribus unum: merge objects into one

Question

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)

Except it's **E** pluribus unum. And you should also at least know Deus ex machina, quod erat demonstrandum, id est, and exempli gratia :-) — paxdiablo, Sep 23 '14 at 08:34
Yep, it is: [E Pluribus Unum](http://i48.tinypic.com/2nw1yiq.png) — chiapa, Sep 23 '14 at 08:37

score 4 · Accepted Answer · edited May 23 '17 at 12:29

4

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?

edited May 23 '17 at 12:29

Community

1
1

answered Sep 23 '14 at 08:38

giammin

18,620
8
71
89

I also do not recommend using the dynamic object, but good point, I have completely forgotten about it. – Santhos Sep 23 '14 at 08:39
1

As to "why don't I want to use a IDictionary", it is because the XML tree of an IDictionary is so awful. Should we ever change from JSON to XML for any reason, I'd like to have everything neat and tidy. – Alexander Sep 23 '14 at 08:43
@Alexander I know it is a long way but you can implement your custom serialization.. – giammin Sep 23 '14 at 08:44
What's to stop you writing a custom XML serialization method for your dictionary? It's a trivial process. – Nick Udell Sep 23 '14 at 08:44
@NickUdell not so trivial for a dictionary but IMHO is better to take this road instead of dynamics – giammin Sep 23 '14 at 08:55

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Sep 23 '14 at 08:37

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.

E pluribus unum: merge objects into one

2 Answers2