How to remove switch to convert string to generic function

How to remove switch to convert string to generic function - c#

This is probably a newbie question but I couldn´t find a good answer even googling and reading a lot about the subject.
I have a generic method, lets call it Execute()
My code receives a message1:
{
serviceProvider: "Sever1",
serviceType: "query",
service: "authors"
}
and message2 could be:
{
serviceProvider: "Sever2",
serviceType: "query",
service: "bookTitles"
}
Now, I have
public void ProcessMessage(Message message)
{
switch (message.service)
{
case "authors":
Execute<Authors>();
break;
case "booTitle":
Execute<BookTitle>();
break;
}
}
I really don´t like this ProcessMessage method, as it does not look DRY at all. And if we add more types of services, then we need to keep adding to the switch.
How should I implement this thing? Do I need reflection? I´d rather not use reflection as the ProcessMessage can be called thousands of times and reflection would probably add a lot of overhead.

If you want to have a dynamic switch you don't need to resort to reflection, but you'd need to register the services you want to use.
Based on your question, here's what that might look like:
void Main()
{
this.Register("authors", () => Execute<Authors>());
this.Register("bookTitles", () => Execute<BookTitle>());
}
private Dictionary<string, Action> _registry = new Dictionary<string, Action>();
private void Register(string key, Action action)
{
_registry[key] = action;
}
public void ProcessMessage(Message message)
{
if (_registry.ContainsKey(message.service))
{
_registry[message.service]();
}
}
You can add as many actions as you need. And you can do that at run-time.

My answer will be split into Two sections:
Section 1: Tell you what you really need!
I think Services dont add so often, so you shouldn't optimize the Maintenence aspect of this code,
just add a strong ASSERT if a service call is not recognized,
so while testing, you know you forgot to add it to this function!
Section 2: give you what you asked for!
I think you can use reflection, but to compansate for performance,
you should cache the Function calls in a dictionary.
// psuedo C#
auto m_ServiceCache = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, SERVICE>()
public void ProcessMessage(Message message)
{
Action svcFunction;
if(!m_serviceCache.TryGetValue(message.service, out svcFunction))
{ // not found in cache
// create the service specific instanciation, and save it to cache!
// Take into account that the "message.service" needs to be a valid type name with namespace!
// Also note you should Sanitize the input as it is a very clear vaulnerablity to exploit
// totally abstract psuedo here
getGeneralType = typeof(SERVICE);
specificType = getGeneralType.CreateSpecificType(T=message.service)
specificObject = specificType.Instanciate();
m_serviceCache.Add(message.service, svcFunction);
svcFunction = specificObject;
}
svcFunction(); // call the cached service.
}
cheers

Related

More concise way to pass, as constructor parameter, an Action that references private data?

This is stripped down from a more complex situation.
The goal is to construct several instances of class SubAction, each of which uses an action to alter how it uses its internal data.
Consider:
public class SubAction
{
private Action<SubAction> _DoIt;
public SubAction(Action<SubAction> doIt)
{
_DoIt = doIt;
}
public void DoIt()
{
_DoIt(this);
}
static public Action<SubAction> GetAction1 => (it) => it.DoSomething(it._Data.Value1);
static public Action<SubAction> GetAction2 => (it) => it.DoSomething(it._Data.Value2);
private void DoSomething(string value)
{
// ...
}
// This gets set by code not shown.
protected Data _Data;
}
public class Data
{
public string Value1;
public string Value2;
}
public class SubActionTests
{
static SubActionTests()
{
var actions = new List<SubAction>
{
new SubAction(SubAction.GetAction1),
new SubAction(SubAction.GetAction2),
};
// ... code not shown that calls a method to update each instance's _Data...
foreach (var subAction in actions)
{
subAction.DoIt();
}
}
}
This works, but it seems cumbersome. Specifically:
public Action<SubAction> _DoIt { get; set; }
...
static public Action<SubAction> GetAction1 => (it) => it.DoSomething(it._Data.Value1);
...
new SubAction(SubAction.GetAction1)
If I set DoIt AFTER constructing the object, could simply be:
public Action DoIt { get; set; }
...
public Action GetAction1 => () => DoSomething(_Data.Value1);
...
var it = new SubAction();
it.DoIt = it.GetAction1;
Which has simpler action declarations:
The actions don't need <SubAction>.
`GetAction1,2,3.. declarations are much simpler.
But more verbose instance initialization, because access to it is needed to set DoIt.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to refer to "it" during object initializer, so there doesn't seem to be any way to have BOTH the simpler initialization syntax AND the simpler action-declaration syntax.
Am I overlooking some solution?
ALTERNATIVE: factory method
NOTE: This could be approached quite differently, by using an enum to select between the different actions. But that is a different sort of complication; I'm looking for a way to describe these Actions themselves more succinctly.
Specifically, I'm aware there could be a factory method that takes an enum, to hide the complexity:
public enum WhichAction
{
Action1,
Action2
}
...
public static CreateSubAction(WhichAction which)
{
var it = new SubAction();
switch (which)
{
case WhichAction.Action1:
it.DoIt = it.GetAction1;
break;
case WhichAction.Action2:
it.DoIt = it.GetAction2;
break;
}
return it;
}
The downside of this is that each added action requires editing in multiple places.
ALTERNATIVE: sub-classes
Another alternative is to create multiple sub-classes.
That is what I was doing originally, but that was even more verbose - multiple lines per each new action.
And felt like "overkill".
After all, the approach I've got isn't terrible - its a single line for each new GetAction. It just felt like each of those lines "ought" to be much simpler.

Sadly, from what I understand, I don't think you can make the complexity disappear. You probably need to choose an approach from the ones you suggested (or even other solutions like using a strategy pattern).
Advice
When confronted with a design choice like this. I suggest you optimize for the consumer's side of things. In other words, design your classes to make them simple to use.
In your scenario, that would mean opting for your initial solution or the more complex solutions (factory method, sub-classes, strategy pattern, etc.).
The problem with the second solution is that your object can be in a limbo state when initializing it.
var it = new SubAction();
// Before you set DoIt, the object is not fully initialized.
it.DoIt = it.GetAction1;
Consumers can also forget to set DoIt. When possible, you should probably avoid designs that allow such mistakes.

While I'm still curious whether there are syntax alternatives that would streamline what I showed, so I'll accept an answer that shows a simpler syntax, turns out in my situation, I can easily avoid the need for those actions.
Discussing with a colleague, they pointed out that my current actions all have a similar pattern: get a string, pass it to SubAction.DoSomething.
Therefore I can simplify those actions down to a property that gets the appropriate string:
public abstract string CurrentValue { get; }
...
public virtual void DoIt()
{
DoSomething(CurrentValue);
}
Given the above, subclasses become so simple they no longer feel like "overkill":
public class SubAction1 : SubAction
{
protected override string CurrentValue => _Data.Value1;
}
...
// usage
new SubAction1()
That is straightforward; highly readable. And trivial to extend when additional conditions are needed.
There will be more complicated situations that do need to override DoSomething. In those, the "real work" dwarfs what I've shown; so its appropriate to subclass those anyway.

Logging of each working method as default in log4net? [duplicate]

For a given class I would like to have tracing functionality i.e. I would like to log every method call (method signature and actual parameter values) and every method exit (just the method signature).
How do I accomplish this assuming that:
I don't want to use any 3rd party
AOP libraries for C#,
I don't want to add duplicate code to all the methods that I want to trace,
I don't want to change the public API of the class - users of the class should be able to call all the methods in exactly the same way.
To make the question more concrete let's assume there are 3 classes:
public class Caller
{
public static void Call()
{
Traced traced = new Traced();
traced.Method1();
traced.Method2();
}
}
public class Traced
{
public void Method1(String name, Int32 value) { }
public void Method2(Object object) { }
}
public class Logger
{
public static void LogStart(MethodInfo method, Object[] parameterValues);
public static void LogEnd(MethodInfo method);
}
How do I invoke Logger.LogStart and Logger.LogEnd for every call to Method1 and Method2 without modifying the Caller.Call method and without adding the calls explicitly to Traced.Method1 and Traced.Method2?
Edit: What would be the solution if I'm allowed to slightly change the Call method?

C# is not an AOP oriented language. It has some AOP features and you can emulate some others but making AOP with C# is painful.
I looked up for ways to do exactly what you wanted to do and I found no easy way to do it.
As I understand it, this is what you want to do:
[Log()]
public void Method1(String name, Int32 value);
and in order to do that you have two main options
Inherit your class from MarshalByRefObject or ContextBoundObject and define an attribute which inherits from IMessageSink. This article has a good example. You have to consider nontheless that using a MarshalByRefObject the performance will go down like hell, and I mean it, I'm talking about a 10x performance lost so think carefully before trying that.
The other option is to inject code directly. In runtime, meaning you'll have to use reflection to "read" every class, get its attributes and inject the appropiate call (and for that matter I think you couldn't use the Reflection.Emit method as I think Reflection.Emit wouldn't allow you to insert new code inside an already existing method). At design time this will mean creating an extension to the CLR compiler which I have honestly no idea on how it's done.
The final option is using an IoC framework. Maybe it's not the perfect solution as most IoC frameworks works by defining entry points which allow methods to be hooked but, depending on what you want to achive, that might be a fair aproximation.

The simplest way to achieve that is probably to use PostSharp. It injects code inside your methods based on the attributes that you apply to it. It allows you to do exactly what you want.
Another option is to use the profiling API to inject code inside the method, but that is really hardcore.

You could achieve it with Interception feature of a DI container such as Castle Windsor. Indeed, it is possible to configure the container in such way that every classes that have a method decorated by a specific attribute would be intercepted.
Regarding point #3, OP asked for a solution without AOP framework. I assumed in the following answer that what should be avoided were Aspect, JointPoint, PointCut, etc. According to Interception documentation from CastleWindsor, none of those are required to accomplish what is asked.
Configure generic registration of an Interceptor, based on the presence of an attribute:
public class RequireInterception : IContributeComponentModelConstruction
{
public void ProcessModel(IKernel kernel, ComponentModel model)
{
if (HasAMethodDecoratedByLoggingAttribute(model.Implementation))
{
model.Interceptors.Add(new InterceptorReference(typeof(ConsoleLoggingInterceptor)));
model.Interceptors.Add(new InterceptorReference(typeof(NLogInterceptor)));
}
}
private bool HasAMethodDecoratedByLoggingAttribute(Type implementation)
{
foreach (var memberInfo in implementation.GetMembers())
{
var attribute = memberInfo.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(LogAttribute)).FirstOrDefault() as LogAttribute;
if (attribute != null)
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}
Add the created IContributeComponentModelConstruction to container
container.Kernel.ComponentModelBuilder.AddContributor(new RequireInterception());
And you can do whatever you want in the interceptor itself
public class ConsoleLoggingInterceptor : IInterceptor
{
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
Console.Writeline("Log before executing");
invocation.Proceed();
Console.Writeline("Log after executing");
}
}
Add the logging attribute to your method to log
public class Traced
{
[Log]
public void Method1(String name, Int32 value) { }
[Log]
public void Method2(Object object) { }
}
Note that some handling of the attribute will be required if only some method of a class needs to be intercepted. By default, all public methods will be intercepted.

If you write a class - call it Tracing - that implements the IDisposable interface, you could wrap all method bodies in a
Using( Tracing tracing = new Tracing() ){ ... method body ...}
In the Tracing class you could the handle the logic of the traces in the constructor/Dispose method, respectively, in the Tracing class to keep track of the entering and exiting of the methods. Such that:
public class Traced
{
public void Method1(String name, Int32 value) {
using(Tracing tracer = new Tracing())
{
[... method body ...]
}
}
public void Method2(Object object) {
using(Tracing tracer = new Tracing())
{
[... method body ...]
}
}
}

If you want to trace after your methods without limitation (no code adaptation, no AOP Framework, no duplicate code), let me tell you, you need some magic...
Seriously, I resolved it to implement an AOP Framework working at runtime.
You can find here : NConcern .NET AOP Framework
I decided to create this AOP Framework to give a respond to this kind of needs. it is a simple library very lightweight. You can see an example of logger in home page.
If you don't want to use a 3rd party assembly, you can browse the code source (open source) and copy both files Aspect.Directory.cs and Aspect.Directory.Entry.cs to adapted as your wishes. Theses classes allow to replace your methods at runtime. I would just ask you to respect the license.
I hope you will find what you need or to convince you to finally use an AOP Framework.

Take a look at this - Pretty heavy stuff..
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc164165.aspx
Essential .net - don box had a chapter on what you need called Interception.
I scraped some of it here (Sorry about the font colors - I had a dark theme back then...)
http://madcoderspeak.blogspot.com/2005/09/essential-interception-using-contexts.html

I have found a different way which may be easier...
Declare a Method InvokeMethod
[WebMethod]
public object InvokeMethod(string methodName, Dictionary<string, object> methodArguments)
{
try
{
string lowerMethodName = '_' + methodName.ToLowerInvariant();
List<object> tempParams = new List<object>();
foreach (MethodInfo methodInfo in serviceMethods.Where(methodInfo => methodInfo.Name.ToLowerInvariant() == lowerMethodName))
{
ParameterInfo[] parameters = methodInfo.GetParameters();
if (parameters.Length != methodArguments.Count()) continue;
else foreach (ParameterInfo parameter in parameters)
{
object argument = null;
if (methodArguments.TryGetValue(parameter.Name, out argument))
{
if (parameter.ParameterType.IsValueType)
{
System.ComponentModel.TypeConverter tc = System.ComponentModel.TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(parameter.ParameterType);
argument = tc.ConvertFrom(argument);
}
tempParams.Insert(parameter.Position, argument);
}
else goto ContinueLoop;
}
foreach (object attribute in methodInfo.GetCustomAttributes(true))
{
if (attribute is YourAttributeClass)
{
RequiresPermissionAttribute attrib = attribute as YourAttributeClass;
YourAttributeClass.YourMethod();//Mine throws an ex
}
}
return methodInfo.Invoke(this, tempParams.ToArray());
ContinueLoop:
continue;
}
return null;
}
catch
{
throw;
}
}
I then define my methods like so
[WebMethod]
public void BroadcastMessage(string Message)
{
//MessageBus.GetInstance().SendAll("<span class='system'>Web Service Broadcast: <b>" + Message + "</b></span>");
//return;
InvokeMethod("BroadcastMessage", new Dictionary<string, object>() { {"Message", Message} });
}
[RequiresPermission("editUser")]
void _BroadcastMessage(string Message)
{
MessageBus.GetInstance().SendAll("<span class='system'>Web Service Broadcast: <b>" + Message + "</b></span>");
return;
}
Now I can have the check at run time without the dependency injection...
No gotchas in site :)
Hopefully you will agree that this is less weight then a AOP Framework or deriving from MarshalByRefObject or using remoting or proxy classes.

First you have to modify your class to implement an interface (rather than implementing the MarshalByRefObject).
interface ITraced {
void Method1();
void Method2()
}
class Traced: ITraced { .... }
Next you need a generic wrapper object based on RealProxy to decorate any interface to allow intercepting any call to the decorated object.
class MethodLogInterceptor: RealProxy
{
public MethodLogInterceptor(Type interfaceType, object decorated)
: base(interfaceType)
{
_decorated = decorated;
}
public override IMessage Invoke(IMessage msg)
{
var methodCall = msg as IMethodCallMessage;
var methodInfo = methodCall.MethodBase;
Console.WriteLine("Precall " + methodInfo.Name);
var result = methodInfo.Invoke(_decorated, methodCall.InArgs);
Console.WriteLine("Postcall " + methodInfo.Name);
return new ReturnMessage(result, null, 0,
methodCall.LogicalCallContext, methodCall);
}
}
Now we are ready to intercept calls to Method1 and Method2 of ITraced
public class Caller
{
public static void Call()
{
ITraced traced = (ITraced)new MethodLogInterceptor(typeof(ITraced), new Traced()).GetTransparentProxy();
traced.Method1();
traced.Method2();
}
}

You can use open source framework CInject on CodePlex. You can write minimal code to create an Injector and get it to intercept any code quickly with CInject. Plus, since this is Open Source you can extend this as well.
Or you can follow the steps mentioned on this article on Intercepting Method Calls using IL and create your own interceptor using Reflection.Emit classes in C#.

I don't know a solution but my approach would be as follows.
Decorate the class (or its methods) with a custom attribute. Somewhere else in the program, let an initialization function reflect all types, read the methods decorated with the attributes and inject some IL code into the method. It might actually be more practical to replace the method by a stub that calls LogStart, the actual method and then LogEnd. Additionally, I don't know if you can change methods using reflection so it might be more practical to replace the whole type.

You could potentially use the GOF Decorator Pattern, and 'decorate' all classes that need tracing.
It's probably only really practical with an IOC container (but as pointer out earlier you may want to consider method interception if you're going to go down the IOC path).

you need to bug Ayende for an answer on how he did it:
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/11/19/can-you-hack-this-out.aspx

AOP is a must for clean code implementing, however if you want to surround a block in C#, generic methods have relatively easier usage. (with intelli sense and strongly typed code) Certainly, it can NOT be an alternative for AOP.
Although PostSHarp have little buggy issues (i do not feel confident for using at production), it is a good stuff.
Generic wrapper class,
public class Wrapper
{
public static Exception TryCatch(Action actionToWrap, Action<Exception> exceptionHandler = null)
{
Exception retval = null;
try
{
actionToWrap();
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
retval = exception;
if (exceptionHandler != null)
{
exceptionHandler(retval);
}
}
return retval;
}
public static Exception LogOnError(Action actionToWrap, string errorMessage = "", Action<Exception> afterExceptionHandled = null)
{
return Wrapper.TryCatch(actionToWrap, (e) =>
{
if (afterExceptionHandled != null)
{
afterExceptionHandled(e);
}
});
}
}
usage could be like this (with intelli sense of course)
var exception = Wrapper.LogOnError(() =>
{
MessageBox.Show("test");
throw new Exception("test");
}, "Hata");

Maybe it's to late for this answer but here it goes.
What you are looking to achieve is built in MediatR library.
This is my RequestLoggerBehaviour which intercepts all calls to my business layer.
namespace SmartWay.Application.Behaviours
{
public class RequestLoggerBehaviour<TRequest, TResponse> : IPipelineBehavior<TRequest, TResponse>
{
private readonly ILogger _logger;
private readonly IAppSession _appSession;
private readonly ICreateLogGrain _createLogGrain;
public RequestLoggerBehaviour(ILogger<TRequest> logger, IAppSession appSession, IClusterClient clusterClient)
{
_logger = logger;
_appSession = appSession;
_createLogGrain = clusterClient.GetGrain<ICreateLogGrain>(Guid.NewGuid());
}
public async Task<TResponse> Handle(TRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken, RequestHandlerDelegate<TResponse> next)
{
var name = typeof(TRequest).Name;
_logger.LogInformation($"SmartWay request started: ClientId: {_appSession.ClientId} UserId: {_appSession.UserId} Operation: {name} Request: {request}");
var response = await next();
_logger.LogInformation($"SmartWay request ended: ClientId: {_appSession.ClientId} UserId: {_appSession.UserId} Operation: {name} Request: {request}");
return response;
}
}
}
You can also create performance behaviours to trace methods that take too long to execute for example.
Having clean architecture (MediatR) on your business layer will allow you to keep your code clean while you enforce SOLID principles.
You can see how it works here:
https://youtu.be/5OtUm1BLmG0?t=1

Write your own AOP library.
Use reflection to generate a logging proxy over your instances (not sure if you can do it without changing some part of your existing code).
Rewrite the assembly and inject your logging code (basically the same as 1).
Host the CLR and add logging at this level (i think this is the hardest solution to implement, not sure if you have the required hooks in the CLR though).

The best you can do before C# 6 with 'nameof' released is to use slow StackTrace and linq Expressions.
E.g. for such method
public void MyMethod(int age, string name)
{
log.DebugTrace(() => age, () => name);
//do your stuff
}
Such line may be produces in your log file
Method 'MyMethod' parameters age: 20 name: Mike
Here is the implementation:
//TODO: replace with 'nameof' in C# 6
public static void DebugTrace(this ILog log, params Expression<Func<object>>[] args)
{
#if DEBUG
var method = (new StackTrace()).GetFrame(1).GetMethod();
var parameters = new List<string>();
foreach(var arg in args)
{
MemberExpression memberExpression = null;
if (arg.Body is MemberExpression)
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)arg.Body;
if (arg.Body is UnaryExpression && ((UnaryExpression)arg.Body).Operand is MemberExpression)
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)((UnaryExpression)arg.Body).Operand;
parameters.Add(memberExpression == null ? "NA" : memberExpression.Member.Name + ": " + arg.Compile().DynamicInvoke().ToString());
}
log.Debug(string.Format("Method '{0}' parameters {1}", method.Name, string.Join(" ", parameters)));
#endif
}

Which design pattern should I use?

I have the following code which executes in sequence, method after another.
I load the request, perform a couple of checks like checking if a response already exists for this request, if not, I call the service and receive the response which I save to the DB.
I was looking for a design pattern I can use in such a case, I thought of posting this here and get some ideas.
public class Manager
{
public void PutRequest()
{
//Do Something
if (loadRequest())
{
callService();
//Do Something
saveResponse();
}
}
private bool loadRequest()
{
bool isExist = checkIfResponseExists();
if (!isExist)
{
// If false, load request from DB
}
return !isExist;
}
private bool checkIfDataExists()
{
//Check if a response already exists in the DB for this request
}
private void callService()
{
//Call the service and receive the response
}
private void saveResponse()
{
//Store the response in the DB
}
}

Patterns are used for solving some problems. What problem your current code have? I don't see any duplicated code, beside names of methods. There is no pattern, which fixes method naming problem.
Yes, your code need some refactoring, but not to patterns. Better class and method naming is a first step. Also, I'd removed field isExist.
public class Manager
{
public void PutRequest()
{
//Do Something
if (!CheckIfResponseExists()) // returns boolean value
LoadRequestFromDB()
CallService();
//Do Something
SaveResponse();
}
}

Check the design pattern called Strategy, it defines an interface common to all supported algorithms and each concrete strategy implements an algorithm
http://www.oodesign.com/strategy-pattern.html

It seems like it'd be more useful for several of these methods to be functions. So instead of having a method who's responsibility is to both check for a condition and do some other actions, you have a function that checks for a condition then the method that called it does some action depending on the result. (Kind of the SRP applied to methods...)
public void DoAllTheThings!() // Oops, Ruby syntax creeping in :P
{
if(!WeCanDoIt())
{
MakeItSo(); // So that we can do it...
}
NowWeCanDoAllTheThings();
}
private bool WeCanDoIt() {}
private void MakeItSo() {}
private void NowWeCanDoAllTheThings() {}

Command + Composite.
Some people consider the use of an if/then Command - in your case that would be in putRequest - in a Composite a kind of Chain Of Responsibility.

While selecting a pattern you should consider scalability of the application
One of the pattern you can apply is state pattern
There will be two states.
Response is already there
Need to process the new response

How can a switch statement be avoided if the return type is unknown by the calling method?

I have been reading a book called Clean Code A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship. The author in the book motivates that a switch statement should be avoided and if it cannot be avoided it should be relegated to factory methods. I have a connection object which is receiving various PDUs (protocol data units). The PDUs vary and they can be received in any order. So if I have a method for example:
public BasePdu ReceiveNext();
because I cannot tell what the packet type is until it has been fully received. In the header of the PDU is an identifier as to which type it should be. This means that the calling method is going to have figure out what the type of the PDU is and based on that call the relevant method to handle it. This sounds like a perfect example for a switch statement. The object that contains the connection I would ideally like to have two threads. One for receiving PDUs and another for servicing a queue of PDUs to be sent.
Now I know that you cannot follow every bit of good advice and that there are just some circumstances which are the exception to the rule. Is this one of them? Or is there a way around this that I just have not yet thought of.
UPDATE:
I hear what a lot of people are saying by creating subclasses of response handlers. The issue is that the containing object has a lot of context and additional information that the handlers would need for example lookups and throttling etc etc. To inject all of this information into subclasses of handlers would be quite a chore to maintain and would also split a lot of logic up when it feels better to be encapsulated in the object that it is in now.

Personally I wouldn't worry about it too much; if it looks like a good place for a switch statement use one. On the other hand this also looks like a situation where you could use a factory method if each PDU type is handled by a class rather than a method. And, accoding to your book, you're allowed you to use switch statements then

Simply create a PDUParserFactory which create the parser based on a PDU type using switch statements on the PDU type identifier. This is the case where the book says it's ok :)
Update: One possible approach
class BasePDU
{
string Name { get; set; }
...
}
class PDUType1 : BasePDU
{
...
}
...
class PDUReceiver
{
public event EventHandler<PDUReceivedEventArgs> PDUReceived;
private void ParsePDU(byte[] data)
{
BasePDU pdu;
switch (byte[0]) // PDU type selector
{
.... parse PDU based on type
}
OnPDUReceived(pdu);
}
private void OnPDUReceived(BasePDU pdu)
{
var handler = PDUReceived;
if (handler != null)
{
handler(this, new PDUReceivedEventArgs(pdu));
}
}
}
Then you can attach listeners to the event:
pduReceiver.PDUReceived += BaseHandler;
pduReceiver.PDUReceived += PDUType1Handler;
...
void PDUType1Handler(object sender, PDUReceivedEventArgs e)
{
// only care about PDUType1
if (e.PDU.GetType() != typeof(PDUType1))
return;
....
}
Alternatively you could also create a event handler dictionary in the receiver, mapping a pdu type to event handlers and then let handlers register for specific types only. This way not all handlers would be called for each received PDU.
Instead of heaving a PDU type hierarchy you could also just have a:
class PDU
{
public PDUType PDUType { get; }
public byte[] PDUData { get }
}
then register handlers in the receiver for each PDUType and let the handler do whatever it wants with the data.
It's hard to give more concrete advice without knowing what exactly you want to do with your received packets.

If I understand your question correctly you have really two questions:
How to create the correct PDU's when you've received the name without using switch.
Create a simple factory by using a dictionary Dictionary<string, Func<PduBase>>
How the method calling public BasePdu ReceiveNext(); can handle it properly without using switch
Do not use a RecieveNext method. Create a AddPduHandler<T>(IPduHandler<T> handler) where T : PduBase method to the class receiving all PDU's. Store all handlers in a dictionary with the type as key: Dictionary<Type, Delegate>
Storing a delegate is kind of a trick since you can not work with the typed interface in the receiving class.
Update
This solution do not break Liskovs Substitution Principle which all implementations using switch do. This means that this class will work no matter how many different types of PDU's that you have.
It's also easier to test your application since each handler is isolated from everything else.
The bonus side is that everything is Typed (except the reader class) which will make it easier of find errors instead of working with casting magic or such.
public class Receiver
{
Dictionary<Type, MethodMapping> _handlers = new Dictionary<Type, MethodMapping>();
Dictionary<string, Func<PduBase>> _factories = new Dictionary<string, Func<PduBase>>();
// Small container making it easier to invoke each handler
// also needed since different generic types cannot be stored in the same
// dictionary
private class MethodMapping
{
public object Instance { get; set; }
public MethodInfo Method { get; set; }
public void Invoke(PduBase pdu)
{
Method.Invoke(Instance, new[] {pdu});
}
}
// add a method used to create a certain PDU type
public void AddFactory(string name, Func<PduBase> factoryMethod)
{
_factories.Add(name, factoryMethod);
}
// register a class that handles a specific PDU type
// we need to juggle a bit with reflection to be able to invoke it
// hence everything is type safe outside this class, but not internally.
// but that should be a sacrifice we can live with.
public void Register<T>(IPduHandler<T> handler) where T : PduBase
{
var method = handler.GetType().GetMethod("Handle", new Type[] { typeof(T) });
_handlers.Add(typeof(T), new MethodMapping{Instance = handler, Method = method});
}
// fake that we've received a new PDU
public void FakeReceive(string pduName)
{
// create the PDU using the factory method
var pdu = _factories[pduName]();
// and invoke the handler.
_handlers[pdu.GetType()].Invoke(pdu);
}
}
public interface IPduHandler<in T> where T: PduBase
{
void Handle(T pdu);
}
public class TempPdu : PduBase
{}
public class TempPduHandler : IPduHandler<TempPdu>
{
public void Handle(TempPdu pdu)
{
Console.WriteLine("Handling pdu");
}
}
public class PduBase
{ }
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
Receiver r = new Receiver();
r.AddFactory("temp", () => new TempPdu());
r.Register(new TempPduHandler());
// we've recieved a PDU called "temp".
r.FakeReceive("temp");
}

The reason to avoid swith statements are not because if structures are any better (when a switch is used, a bunch of if's will make it worse, not better) it mainly because the problem is not solved in an OO way.
From an OO point of view it is almost always better to use polymorphism then a switch statement.
In your example it's probably better to use a factorymethod to provide the appropriate handler for your type of package.

not sure if that's exactly the point, but having different instances whose treatment differs according to an ID is in fact a case for creating subclasses (the choice of subclass representing the information that was previously stored in the ID) of eg BasePdu and have the compiler figure out which method to use. if you're doing that by switching, it means you're not fully taking advantage of structuring your code by subclassing.

How do I intercept a method call in C#?

For a given class I would like to have tracing functionality i.e. I would like to log every method call (method signature and actual parameter values) and every method exit (just the method signature).
How do I accomplish this assuming that:
I don't want to use any 3rd party
AOP libraries for C#,
I don't want to add duplicate code to all the methods that I want to trace,
I don't want to change the public API of the class - users of the class should be able to call all the methods in exactly the same way.
To make the question more concrete let's assume there are 3 classes:
public class Caller
{
public static void Call()
{
Traced traced = new Traced();
traced.Method1();
traced.Method2();
}
}
public class Traced
{
public void Method1(String name, Int32 value) { }
public void Method2(Object object) { }
}
public class Logger
{
public static void LogStart(MethodInfo method, Object[] parameterValues);
public static void LogEnd(MethodInfo method);
}
How do I invoke Logger.LogStart and Logger.LogEnd for every call to Method1 and Method2 without modifying the Caller.Call method and without adding the calls explicitly to Traced.Method1 and Traced.Method2?
Edit: What would be the solution if I'm allowed to slightly change the Call method?

C# is not an AOP oriented language. It has some AOP features and you can emulate some others but making AOP with C# is painful.
I looked up for ways to do exactly what you wanted to do and I found no easy way to do it.
As I understand it, this is what you want to do:
[Log()]
public void Method1(String name, Int32 value);
and in order to do that you have two main options
Inherit your class from MarshalByRefObject or ContextBoundObject and define an attribute which inherits from IMessageSink. This article has a good example. You have to consider nontheless that using a MarshalByRefObject the performance will go down like hell, and I mean it, I'm talking about a 10x performance lost so think carefully before trying that.
The other option is to inject code directly. In runtime, meaning you'll have to use reflection to "read" every class, get its attributes and inject the appropiate call (and for that matter I think you couldn't use the Reflection.Emit method as I think Reflection.Emit wouldn't allow you to insert new code inside an already existing method). At design time this will mean creating an extension to the CLR compiler which I have honestly no idea on how it's done.
The final option is using an IoC framework. Maybe it's not the perfect solution as most IoC frameworks works by defining entry points which allow methods to be hooked but, depending on what you want to achive, that might be a fair aproximation.

The simplest way to achieve that is probably to use PostSharp. It injects code inside your methods based on the attributes that you apply to it. It allows you to do exactly what you want.
Another option is to use the profiling API to inject code inside the method, but that is really hardcore.

You could achieve it with Interception feature of a DI container such as Castle Windsor. Indeed, it is possible to configure the container in such way that every classes that have a method decorated by a specific attribute would be intercepted.
Regarding point #3, OP asked for a solution without AOP framework. I assumed in the following answer that what should be avoided were Aspect, JointPoint, PointCut, etc. According to Interception documentation from CastleWindsor, none of those are required to accomplish what is asked.
Configure generic registration of an Interceptor, based on the presence of an attribute:
public class RequireInterception : IContributeComponentModelConstruction
{
public void ProcessModel(IKernel kernel, ComponentModel model)
{
if (HasAMethodDecoratedByLoggingAttribute(model.Implementation))
{
model.Interceptors.Add(new InterceptorReference(typeof(ConsoleLoggingInterceptor)));
model.Interceptors.Add(new InterceptorReference(typeof(NLogInterceptor)));
}
}
private bool HasAMethodDecoratedByLoggingAttribute(Type implementation)
{
foreach (var memberInfo in implementation.GetMembers())
{
var attribute = memberInfo.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(LogAttribute)).FirstOrDefault() as LogAttribute;
if (attribute != null)
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}
Add the created IContributeComponentModelConstruction to container
container.Kernel.ComponentModelBuilder.AddContributor(new RequireInterception());
And you can do whatever you want in the interceptor itself
public class ConsoleLoggingInterceptor : IInterceptor
{
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
Console.Writeline("Log before executing");
invocation.Proceed();
Console.Writeline("Log after executing");
}
}
Add the logging attribute to your method to log
public class Traced
{
[Log]
public void Method1(String name, Int32 value) { }
[Log]
public void Method2(Object object) { }
}
Note that some handling of the attribute will be required if only some method of a class needs to be intercepted. By default, all public methods will be intercepted.

If you write a class - call it Tracing - that implements the IDisposable interface, you could wrap all method bodies in a
Using( Tracing tracing = new Tracing() ){ ... method body ...}
In the Tracing class you could the handle the logic of the traces in the constructor/Dispose method, respectively, in the Tracing class to keep track of the entering and exiting of the methods. Such that:
public class Traced
{
public void Method1(String name, Int32 value) {
using(Tracing tracer = new Tracing())
{
[... method body ...]
}
}
public void Method2(Object object) {
using(Tracing tracer = new Tracing())
{
[... method body ...]
}
}
}

If you want to trace after your methods without limitation (no code adaptation, no AOP Framework, no duplicate code), let me tell you, you need some magic...
Seriously, I resolved it to implement an AOP Framework working at runtime.
You can find here : NConcern .NET AOP Framework
I decided to create this AOP Framework to give a respond to this kind of needs. it is a simple library very lightweight. You can see an example of logger in home page.
If you don't want to use a 3rd party assembly, you can browse the code source (open source) and copy both files Aspect.Directory.cs and Aspect.Directory.Entry.cs to adapted as your wishes. Theses classes allow to replace your methods at runtime. I would just ask you to respect the license.
I hope you will find what you need or to convince you to finally use an AOP Framework.

Take a look at this - Pretty heavy stuff..
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc164165.aspx
Essential .net - don box had a chapter on what you need called Interception.
I scraped some of it here (Sorry about the font colors - I had a dark theme back then...)
http://madcoderspeak.blogspot.com/2005/09/essential-interception-using-contexts.html

I have found a different way which may be easier...
Declare a Method InvokeMethod
[WebMethod]
public object InvokeMethod(string methodName, Dictionary<string, object> methodArguments)
{
try
{
string lowerMethodName = '_' + methodName.ToLowerInvariant();
List<object> tempParams = new List<object>();
foreach (MethodInfo methodInfo in serviceMethods.Where(methodInfo => methodInfo.Name.ToLowerInvariant() == lowerMethodName))
{
ParameterInfo[] parameters = methodInfo.GetParameters();
if (parameters.Length != methodArguments.Count()) continue;
else foreach (ParameterInfo parameter in parameters)
{
object argument = null;
if (methodArguments.TryGetValue(parameter.Name, out argument))
{
if (parameter.ParameterType.IsValueType)
{
System.ComponentModel.TypeConverter tc = System.ComponentModel.TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(parameter.ParameterType);
argument = tc.ConvertFrom(argument);
}
tempParams.Insert(parameter.Position, argument);
}
else goto ContinueLoop;
}
foreach (object attribute in methodInfo.GetCustomAttributes(true))
{
if (attribute is YourAttributeClass)
{
RequiresPermissionAttribute attrib = attribute as YourAttributeClass;
YourAttributeClass.YourMethod();//Mine throws an ex
}
}
return methodInfo.Invoke(this, tempParams.ToArray());
ContinueLoop:
continue;
}
return null;
}
catch
{
throw;
}
}
I then define my methods like so
[WebMethod]
public void BroadcastMessage(string Message)
{
//MessageBus.GetInstance().SendAll("<span class='system'>Web Service Broadcast: <b>" + Message + "</b></span>");
//return;
InvokeMethod("BroadcastMessage", new Dictionary<string, object>() { {"Message", Message} });
}
[RequiresPermission("editUser")]
void _BroadcastMessage(string Message)
{
MessageBus.GetInstance().SendAll("<span class='system'>Web Service Broadcast: <b>" + Message + "</b></span>");
return;
}
Now I can have the check at run time without the dependency injection...
No gotchas in site :)
Hopefully you will agree that this is less weight then a AOP Framework or deriving from MarshalByRefObject or using remoting or proxy classes.

First you have to modify your class to implement an interface (rather than implementing the MarshalByRefObject).
interface ITraced {
void Method1();
void Method2()
}
class Traced: ITraced { .... }
Next you need a generic wrapper object based on RealProxy to decorate any interface to allow intercepting any call to the decorated object.
class MethodLogInterceptor: RealProxy
{
public MethodLogInterceptor(Type interfaceType, object decorated)
: base(interfaceType)
{
_decorated = decorated;
}
public override IMessage Invoke(IMessage msg)
{
var methodCall = msg as IMethodCallMessage;
var methodInfo = methodCall.MethodBase;
Console.WriteLine("Precall " + methodInfo.Name);
var result = methodInfo.Invoke(_decorated, methodCall.InArgs);
Console.WriteLine("Postcall " + methodInfo.Name);
return new ReturnMessage(result, null, 0,
methodCall.LogicalCallContext, methodCall);
}
}
Now we are ready to intercept calls to Method1 and Method2 of ITraced
public class Caller
{
public static void Call()
{
ITraced traced = (ITraced)new MethodLogInterceptor(typeof(ITraced), new Traced()).GetTransparentProxy();
traced.Method1();
traced.Method2();
}
}

You can use open source framework CInject on CodePlex. You can write minimal code to create an Injector and get it to intercept any code quickly with CInject. Plus, since this is Open Source you can extend this as well.
Or you can follow the steps mentioned on this article on Intercepting Method Calls using IL and create your own interceptor using Reflection.Emit classes in C#.

I don't know a solution but my approach would be as follows.
Decorate the class (or its methods) with a custom attribute. Somewhere else in the program, let an initialization function reflect all types, read the methods decorated with the attributes and inject some IL code into the method. It might actually be more practical to replace the method by a stub that calls LogStart, the actual method and then LogEnd. Additionally, I don't know if you can change methods using reflection so it might be more practical to replace the whole type.

You could potentially use the GOF Decorator Pattern, and 'decorate' all classes that need tracing.
It's probably only really practical with an IOC container (but as pointer out earlier you may want to consider method interception if you're going to go down the IOC path).

you need to bug Ayende for an answer on how he did it:
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/11/19/can-you-hack-this-out.aspx

AOP is a must for clean code implementing, however if you want to surround a block in C#, generic methods have relatively easier usage. (with intelli sense and strongly typed code) Certainly, it can NOT be an alternative for AOP.
Although PostSHarp have little buggy issues (i do not feel confident for using at production), it is a good stuff.
Generic wrapper class,
public class Wrapper
{
public static Exception TryCatch(Action actionToWrap, Action<Exception> exceptionHandler = null)
{
Exception retval = null;
try
{
actionToWrap();
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
retval = exception;
if (exceptionHandler != null)
{
exceptionHandler(retval);
}
}
return retval;
}
public static Exception LogOnError(Action actionToWrap, string errorMessage = "", Action<Exception> afterExceptionHandled = null)
{
return Wrapper.TryCatch(actionToWrap, (e) =>
{
if (afterExceptionHandled != null)
{
afterExceptionHandled(e);
}
});
}
}
usage could be like this (with intelli sense of course)
var exception = Wrapper.LogOnError(() =>
{
MessageBox.Show("test");
throw new Exception("test");
}, "Hata");

Maybe it's to late for this answer but here it goes.
What you are looking to achieve is built in MediatR library.
This is my RequestLoggerBehaviour which intercepts all calls to my business layer.
namespace SmartWay.Application.Behaviours
{
public class RequestLoggerBehaviour<TRequest, TResponse> : IPipelineBehavior<TRequest, TResponse>
{
private readonly ILogger _logger;
private readonly IAppSession _appSession;
private readonly ICreateLogGrain _createLogGrain;
public RequestLoggerBehaviour(ILogger<TRequest> logger, IAppSession appSession, IClusterClient clusterClient)
{
_logger = logger;
_appSession = appSession;
_createLogGrain = clusterClient.GetGrain<ICreateLogGrain>(Guid.NewGuid());
}
public async Task<TResponse> Handle(TRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken, RequestHandlerDelegate<TResponse> next)
{
var name = typeof(TRequest).Name;
_logger.LogInformation($"SmartWay request started: ClientId: {_appSession.ClientId} UserId: {_appSession.UserId} Operation: {name} Request: {request}");
var response = await next();
_logger.LogInformation($"SmartWay request ended: ClientId: {_appSession.ClientId} UserId: {_appSession.UserId} Operation: {name} Request: {request}");
return response;
}
}
}
You can also create performance behaviours to trace methods that take too long to execute for example.
Having clean architecture (MediatR) on your business layer will allow you to keep your code clean while you enforce SOLID principles.
You can see how it works here:
https://youtu.be/5OtUm1BLmG0?t=1

Write your own AOP library.
Use reflection to generate a logging proxy over your instances (not sure if you can do it without changing some part of your existing code).
Rewrite the assembly and inject your logging code (basically the same as 1).
Host the CLR and add logging at this level (i think this is the hardest solution to implement, not sure if you have the required hooks in the CLR though).

The best you can do before C# 6 with 'nameof' released is to use slow StackTrace and linq Expressions.
E.g. for such method
public void MyMethod(int age, string name)
{
log.DebugTrace(() => age, () => name);
//do your stuff
}
Such line may be produces in your log file
Method 'MyMethod' parameters age: 20 name: Mike
Here is the implementation:
//TODO: replace with 'nameof' in C# 6
public static void DebugTrace(this ILog log, params Expression<Func<object>>[] args)
{
#if DEBUG
var method = (new StackTrace()).GetFrame(1).GetMethod();
var parameters = new List<string>();
foreach(var arg in args)
{
MemberExpression memberExpression = null;
if (arg.Body is MemberExpression)
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)arg.Body;
if (arg.Body is UnaryExpression && ((UnaryExpression)arg.Body).Operand is MemberExpression)
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)((UnaryExpression)arg.Body).Operand;
parameters.Add(memberExpression == null ? "NA" : memberExpression.Member.Name + ": " + arg.Compile().DynamicInvoke().ToString());
}
log.Debug(string.Format("Method '{0}' parameters {1}", method.Name, string.Join(" ", parameters)));
#endif
}

Develop Reference

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.