Webservice with optional parameters

[Sam Shrefler]

I'm working on creating a WebService / WebMethod to receive a record
in real time from another system. The record contains about 20
fields. 10 of which aren't required.

I was planning on just making a method with 20 parameters. But, I see
there is no way to make an "optional" c# parameter. I was just
wondering if anyone had an suggestions on how to implement this? The
parameters are all different primitive types (int, string,
datetime)....

thanks

Sam

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

On May 9, 4:56 pm, Sam Shrefler <[e-mail]:

I'm working on creating a WebService / WebMethod to receive a record
in real time from another system. The record contains about 20
fields. 10 of which aren't required.

I was planning on just making a method with 20 parameters. But, I see
there is no way to make an "optional" c# parameter. I was just
wondering if anyone had an suggestions on how to implement this? The
parameters are all different primitive types (int, string,
datetime)....

Make it take a single parameter of a type which encapsulates the
record. For optional reference type fields, use null to avoid
specifying the value. For optional value type fields, either have a
separate flag or have a "magic" value which means "no real
value" (e.g. int.MinValue for integers).

Jon

[Sam Shrefler]

Is there any way to use Nullable<intor Nullable<dateTimein the in
the record?

Thanks

Sam
On May 9, 11:59 am, "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <[e-mail]:

On May 9, 4:56 pm, Sam Shrefler <[e-mail]:

I'm working on creating a WebService / WebMethod to receive a record
in real time from another system. The record contains about 20
fields. 10 of which aren't required.

I was planning on just making a method with 20 parameters. But, I see
there is no way to make an "optional" c# parameter. I was just
wondering if anyone had an suggestions on how to implement this? The
parameters are all different primitive types (int, string,
datetime)....

Make it take a single parameter of a type which encapsulates the
record. For optional reference type fields, use null to avoid
specifying the value. For optional value type fields, either have a
separate flag or have a "magic" value which means "no real
value" (e.g. int.MinValue for integers).

Jon

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=]

I think what Jon is saying is you should consider having your method accept
an object of type Record as the single parameter to your WebMethod.
Inside the body of the method, you can then easily access the values of the
10 fields that you actually need, and just forget about the others.
Keep it simple!
Peter
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"Sam Shrefler" wrote:

Is there any way to use Nullable<intor Nullable<dateTimein the in
the record?

Thanks

Sam
On May 9, 11:59 am, "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <[e-mail]:

On May 9, 4:56 pm, Sam Shrefler <[e-mail]:

I'm working on creating a WebService / WebMethod to receive a record
in real time from another system. The record contains about 20
fields. 10 of which aren't required.

I was planning on just making a method with 20 parameters. But, I see
there is no way to make an "optional" c# parameter. I was just
wondering if anyone had an suggestions on how to implement this? The
parameters are all different primitive types (int, string,
datetime)....

Make it take a single parameter of a type which encapsulates the
record. For optional reference type fields, use null to avoid
specifying the value. For optional value type fields, either have a
separate flag or have a "magic" value which means "no real
value" (e.g. int.MinValue for integers).

Jon

[Sam Shrefler]

I'm sorry,I guess I didn't explain myself very well there.

I have a webMethod called saveUser

It must receive user information. Some of the information needs to be
optional. Some is required (represented with a *):

string firstName*
string middleName
string lastName*
dateTime birthday*
dateTime anniversary
dateTime death
int userTypeID

I need my method able to accept all of them, yet, it can't force them
to send an anniversaryDate time...

Any suggestions on something like that?

Thanks

Sam
On May 9, 1:41 pm, Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]
<[e-mail]:

I think what Jon is saying is you should consider having your method accept
an object of type Record as the single parameter to your WebMethod.
Inside the body of the method, you can then easily access the values of the
10 fields that you actually need, and just forget about the others.
Keep it simple!
Peter
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

"Sam Shrefler" wrote:

Is there any way to use Nullable<intor Nullable<dateTimein the in
the record?

Thanks

Sam

On May 9, 11:59 am, "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <[e-mail]:

On May 9, 4:56 pm, Sam Shrefler <[e-mail]:

I'm working on creating a WebService / WebMethod to receive a record
in real time from another system. The record contains about 20
fields. 10 of which aren't required.

I was planning on just making a method with 20 parameters. But, I see
there is no way to make an "optional" c# parameter. I was just
wondering if anyone had an suggestions on how to implement this? The
parameters are all different primitive types (int, string,
datetime)....

Make it take a single parameter of a type which encapsulates the
record. For optional reference type fields, use null to avoid
specifying the value. For optional value type fields, either have a
separate flag or have a "magic" value which means "no real
value" (e.g. int.MinValue for integers).

Jon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=]

Well, if that's the way you must do it, then why not just leave the optional
parameters "blank" - either an empty string ( "") or null, whichever fits
your types, when the values are passed into your method?

For a DateTime, you can pass DateTime.MinValue (which is not a "null") and
just check for that.

So, you can check to see if optional parameters have a value, and decide
what to do.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"Sam Shrefler" wrote:

I'm sorry,I guess I didn't explain myself very well there.

I have a webMethod called saveUser

It must receive user information. Some of the information needs to be
optional. Some is required (represented with a *):

string firstName*
string middleName
string lastName*
dateTime birthday*
dateTime anniversary
dateTime death
int userTypeID

I need my method able to accept all of them, yet, it can't force them
to send an anniversaryDate time...

Any suggestions on something like that?

Thanks

Sam
On May 9, 1:41 pm, Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]
<[e-mail]:

I think what Jon is saying is you should consider having your method accept
an object of type Record as the single parameter to your WebMethod.
Inside the body of the method, you can then easily access the values of the
10 fields that you actually need, and just forget about the others.
Keep it simple!
Peter
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

"Sam Shrefler" wrote:

Is there any way to use Nullable<intor Nullable<dateTimein the in
the record?

Thanks

Sam

On May 9, 11:59 am, "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <[e-mail]:
On May 9, 4:56 pm, Sam Shrefler <[e-mail]:

I'm working on creating a WebService / WebMethod to receive a record
in real time from another system. The record contains about 20
fields. 10 of which aren't required.

I was planning on just making a method with 20 parameters. But, I see
there is no way to make an "optional" c# parameter. I was just
wondering if anyone had an suggestions on how to implement this? The
parameters are all different primitive types (int, string,
datetime)....

Make it take a single parameter of a type which encapsulates the
record. For optional reference type fields, use null to avoid
specifying the value. For optional value type fields, either have a
separate flag or have a "magic" value which means "no real
value" (e.g. int.MinValue for integers).

Jon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Sam Shrefler]

I'd rather not use minValue since this webservice will be consumed by
many different platforms. Instead what i am trying to do is declare
my params as DateTime? and int?

That way, hopefully the user can just send an empty param <myDateTime/

and that will be received as null.

I'm creating and waiting for some tests to occur.

Does this seem like a viable solution?

On May 9, 3:00 pm, Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]
<[e-mail]:

Well, if that's the way you must do it, then why not just leave the optional
parameters "blank" - either an empty string ( "") or null, whichever fits
your types, when the values are passed into your method?

For a DateTime, you can pass DateTime.MinValue (which is not a "null") and
just check for that.

So, you can check to see if optional parameters have a value, and decide
what to do.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

"Sam Shrefler" wrote:

I'm sorry,I guess I didn't explain myself very well there.

I have a webMethod called saveUser

It must receive user information. Some of the information needs to be
optional. Some is required (represented with a *):

string firstName*
string middleName
string lastName*
dateTime birthday*
dateTime anniversary
dateTime death
int userTypeID

I need my method able to accept all of them, yet, it can't force them
to send an anniversaryDate time...

Any suggestions on something like that?

Thanks

Sam

On May 9, 1:41 pm, Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]
<[e-mail]:

I think what Jon is saying is you should consider having your method accept
an object of type Record as the single parameter to your WebMethod.
Inside the body of the method, you can then easily access the values of the
10 fields that you actually need, and just forget about the others.
Keep it simple!
Peter
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

"Sam Shrefler" wrote:
Is there any way to use Nullable<intor Nullable<dateTimein the in
the record?

Thanks

Sam

On May 9, 11:59 am, "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <[e-mail]:
On May 9, 4:56 pm, Sam Shrefler <[e-mail]:

I'm working on creating a WebService / WebMethod to receive a record
in real time from another system. The record contains about 20
fields. 10 of which aren't required.

I was planning on just making a method with 20 parameters. But, I see
there is no way to make an "optional" c# parameter. I was just
wondering if anyone had an suggestions on how to implement this? The
parameters are all different primitive types (int, string,
datetime)....

Make it take a single parameter of a type which encapsulates the
record. For optional reference type fields, use null to avoid
specifying the value. For optional value type fields, either have a
separate flag or have a "magic" value which means "no real
value" (e.g. int.MinValue for integers).

Jon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Sam Shrefler <ss*******@gmail.comwrote:

I'd rather not use minValue since this webservice will be consumed by
many different platforms. Instead what i am trying to do is declare
my params as DateTime? and int?

Using int.MinValue is a *lot* more portable than using nullable types.
How would you expect Record to be represented on a platform which
doesn't have nullable types?

Compare that with using int.MinValue, which will always be the minimum
value of a 32-bit 2's complement integer.

Using DateTime.MinValue is a bit riskier - you'd have to have a well-
defined date/time which is representable on all target platforms, and
use that everywhere.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too