XMLSerializer

Why don't you try it, and then tell us? :) (might mean some extra work though)

Thanks dglienna,


I can try the performance, but not the questions in my post #12 about how internally CLR treats the dynamically created assemblies. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dglienna

Why don't you try it, and then tell us? :) (might mean some extra work though)

---

regards,
George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George2

I only have two classes -- means 2 different types, there are not too many performance gains. But I have technical interests to learn something more, especially how to consider in the future when I have 200 classes. :-)

---

You've heard of the concept of over optimization? It's where a developer attempts to optimize a bit of code before understanding whether or not it's a bottleneck. Here you have two options. Either build a serializer object on the fly or precompile the serializers you need as mentioned by TheCPUWizard and others. As far as caching a serializer that is built on the fly, we get back to over (or premature) optimization. But rather and ask this question, just test for it yourself and save forum bandwidth. You can then post your results and let us know what you find. Btw, while your tests are running, check out the forum and see if you can knock out any of the questions - that would be a real help if additional folks would contribute.