Long story short, i have following class:
public class FlowBasePipeline<T>
{
private List<StepBaseBusiness<T>> stepList = new List<StepBaseBusiness<T>>();
public void Push(StepBaseBusiness<T> step)
{
stepList.Add(step);
}
public void Trigger(T result)
{
foreach (var step in stepList )
{
result = step.Execute(result);
if (!result.IsSuccess)
{
break;
}
}
}
}
What I'm looking for is forcing programmer to call Push method in the first place and then give them access to Trigger method, in this case following scenario is not allowed
var pipeline=new FlowBasePipeline<MyStepResult>();
pipeline.Trigger()// Trigger method is not recognized
we should first call Push method
var pipeline=new FlowBasePipeline<MyStepResult>();
pipeline.Push(new MyStep()).Trigger()//Now Trigger is recognized
What I've done:
I applied explicit interface method implementation as follows to get it to work:
public interface IBasePipeline<T> where T:BaseResult,new()
{
void Trigger();
IBasePipeline<T> Push(StepBaseBusiness<T> step);
}
public class FlowBasePipeline<T>:IBasePipeline<T> where T:BaseResult,new()
{
private List<StepBaseBusiness<T>> stepList = new List<StepBaseBusiness<T>>();
public IBasePipeline<T> Push(StepBaseBusiness<T> step)
{
stepList.Add(step);
return this;
}
void IBasePipeline<T>.Trigger(T result)
{
foreach (var step in stepList )
{
result = step.Execute(result);
if (!result.IsSuccess)
{
break;
}
}
}
}
Now it works well and we don't have access to Trigger method before Push method, but from my prospective it's not a good way as we might need more level of orders and i don't know how it could be done in this way.
As i know, method chaining is one of the key rules of functional programming.
Is there any pattern or strategy to implement this kind of chaining?
Update:
we need to call push method multiple times
var pipeline=new FlowBasePipeline<MyStepResult>();
pipeline.Push(new MyStep1()).Push(new MyStep2()).Trigger();
After first push, push and trigger would be available.
One way to do this is to use interfaces to restrict access to specific methods by specifying an interface as the result.
public interface IStartCar
{
IDriveCar Start(string key);
}
public interface IDriveCar
{
IParkCar Drive(string address);
}
public interface IParkCar
{
IStopCar Park();
}
public interface IStopCar
{
IParkCar Drive(string address);
void Stop();
}
public class Car : IStartCar, IDriveCar, IParkCar, IStopCar
{
public IDriveCar Start(string key);
public IParkCar Drive(string address);
public IStopCar Park();
public IStopCar Park();
private Car() { }
public static IStartCar Get()
{
var result = new Car();
return result;
}
}
Now to get a Car you use the CarFactory method Get(), it returns a car, but you really only have access to the interface result. This pattern only allows developers to string specific methods together:
var car = Car.Get();
car.Start("key").Drive("address1").Park().Drive("address2").Park().Stop();
Example of approach I use for api's that inherently 'guide' the callers with a fluent syntax:
public class Pipeline
{
readonly List<Action> _steps = new List<Action>();
// only Push is available when Pipeline is initialized
public PipelineWithSteps Push(Action step)
{
_steps.Add(step);
// or cache this if you want 'Push' repeatable
return new PipelineWithSteps(this);
}
public class PipelineWithSteps
{
// not required but often the chained context wants/needs access to the first context
readonly Pipeline _context;
// api is public but ctor cannot be invoked by external caller
internal PipelineWithSteps(Pipeline context) => _context = context;
// now Trigger is available only after something was pushed
public PipelineWithSteps Trigger()
{
foreach(var step in _context._steps)
step();
Console.WriteLine();
return this;
}
// usually I don't repeat an initialization method;
// this could be done using the 'context'
// but would have to be refactored to return the existing 'PipelineWithSteps'
public PipelineWithSteps Push(Action step)
{
_context._steps.Add(step);
return this;
}
}
}
Usage:
var pipeline = new Pipeline();
pipeline.Push(() => Console.WriteLine("A"))
.Push(() => Console.WriteLine("B"))
.Trigger()
.Push(() => Console.WriteLine("C"))
.Trigger();
Output:
A
B
A
B
C
After hours ,i came up with this design:
public interface IBasePipelineRegister<T> where T:BaseResult
{
IStagePipeline<T> Push(StepBaseBusiness<T> step);
List<StepBaseBusiness<T>> Steps { get; set; }
}
public interface IBasePipelineTrigger<T> where T:BaseResult
{
void Trigger(T result);
}
public interface IStagePipeline<T>: IBasePipelineTrigger<T>,IBasePipelineRegister<T> where T:BaseResult
{
}
public class FlowBasePipeline<TResult> : IBasePipelineRegister<TResult> where TResult : BaseResult,new()
{
public List<StepBaseBusiness<TResult>> Steps { get ; set ; }
private IStagePipeline<TResult> _stagePipeline;
public BasePipeline()
{
this.Steps = new List<StepBaseBusiness<TResult>>();
this._stagePipeline = new StagePipeline<TResult>(this);
}
public IStagePipeline<TResult> Push(StepBaseBusiness<TResult> step)
{
Steps.Add(step);
return _stagePipeline;
}
}
As you see, BasePipeline just implements IBasePipelineRegister and Register method presents new StagePipeline class that is consist of current class plus trigger implementation.
public class StagePipeline<T>: IStagePipeline<T> where T:BaseResult
{
private readonly IBasePipelineRegister<T> pipelineRegister;
public List<StepBaseBusiness<T>> Steps { get; set; }
public StagePipeline(IBasePipelineRegister<T> pipelineRegister)
{
this.pipelineRegister = pipelineRegister;
Steps = pipelineRegister.Steps;
}
public IStagePipeline<T> Push(StepBaseBusiness<T> step)
{
return pipelineRegister.Push(step);
}
public void Trigger(T result)
{
foreach (var step in Steps)
{
result = step.Execute(result);
if (!result.IsSuccess)
{
break;
}
}
}
}
Now each method adds a new feature not replacing new one.
var pipeline=new FlowBasePipeline<MyStepResult>();
pipeline.Push(new MyStep1()).Push(new MyStep2()).Trigger();
Related
I have interface that defines value and few operations:
public interface IValue<T>
{
T Value { get; }
void InteractionA(IValue<T> target);
void InteractionB(IValue<T> target);
bool Check(IValue<T> target);
}
Then i implement class based on that interface
public class DoubleValue : IValue<double>
{
public double Value { get; private set; }
public bool Check(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
return false;
}
public void InteractionA(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
}
public void InteractionB(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
}
}
Now i want to make universal manipulator that operates on pool of values and uses generics (so i only write it once). Because of the way i want to use this class in the future it cannot be declared static. Moving generic type into methods also doesn't do any good.
The closest i could get is:
public class ValueManipulator<T>
{
public IEnumerable<IValue<T>> Pool { get; private set; }
public ValueManipulator(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
{
Pool = pool;
}
public void ManipulateA()
{
foreach (int i in Enumerable.Range(0, Pool.Count()))
{
IValue<T> firstValue = Pool.ElementAt(i);
foreach (IValue<T> secondValue in Pool.Skip(i))
{
if (firstValue.Check(secondValue))
firstValue.InteractionA(secondValue);
else
firstValue.InteractionB(secondValue);
}
}
}
public void ManipulateB()
{
// ...
}
}
Main problem with this ValueManipulator class is that i need to know T of IValue used in DoubleValue (in this case double). So it looks like this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ValueManipulator<double> doubleManipulator = new ValueManipulator<double>();
doubleManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles());
}
private static IEnumerable<DoubleValue> ProvideDoubles()
{
yield return new DoubleValue();
yield return new DoubleValue();
yield return new DoubleValue();
}
How do i make ValueManipulator so user does not need to know what type was used in value implementation?
Well, if your ValueManipulator<T> has no state, as appears to be your case according to your code snippets, then simply make the methods generic instead of the class, that way you can leverage type inference.
public class ValueManipulator
{
public void Manipulate<T>(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
{
foreach (int i in Enumerable.Range(0, pool.Count()))
{
IValue<T> firstValue = pool.ElementAt(i);
foreach (IValue<T> secondValue in pool.Skip(i))
{
if (firstValue.Check(secondValue))
firstValue.InteractionA(secondValue);
else
firstValue.InteractionB(secondValue);
}
}
}
}
Now you can simply do:
ValueManipulator myManipulator = new ValueManipulator();
myManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles()); //type inference will figure out T is double
If this is a valid solution then consider making ValueManipulator a static class:
ValueManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles());
P.D. Please follow advice in commentaries and change ValueType to some other name thats less confusing.
UPDATE After your latest edit to your question, where you clearly state that ValueManipulator<T> does have state, the solution seems to be implementing a static factory class:
public static class ValueManipulator
{
public static ValueManipulator<T> Create<T>(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
=> new ValueManipulator<T>(pool);
}
public class ValueManipulator<T> { ... }
And again you let type inference do its job:
var doubleManipulator = ValueManipulator.Create(ProvideDoubles());
Is there in C# some kind of equivalent of ExpectedSystemExit in Java? I have an exit in my code and would really like to be able to test it. The only thing I found in C# is a not really nice workaround.
Example Code
public void CheckRights()
{
if(!service.UserHasRights())
{
Environment.Exit(1);
}
}
Test Code
[TestMethod]
public void TestCheckRightsWithoutRights()
{
MyService service = ...
service.UserHasRights().Returns(false);
???
}
I am using the VS framework for testing (+ NSubstitute for mocking) but it is not a problem to switch to nunit or whatever for this test.
You should use dependency injection to supply to the class being tested an interface that provides an environmental exit.
For example:
public interface IEnvironment
{
void Exit(int code);
}
Let's also assume that you have an interface for calling UserHasRights():
public interface IRightsService
{
bool UserHasRights();
}
Now suppose your class to be tested looks like this:
public sealed class RightsChecker
{
readonly IRightsService service;
readonly IEnvironment environment;
public RightsChecker(IRightsService service, IEnvironment environment)
{
this.service = service;
this.environment = environment;
}
public void CheckRights()
{
if (!service.UserHasRights())
{
environment.Exit(1);
}
}
}
Now you can use a mocking framework to check that IEnvironment .Exit() is called under the right conditions. For example, using Moq it might look a bit like this:
[TestMethod]
public static void CheckRights_exits_program_when_user_has_no_rights()
{
var rightsService = new Mock<IRightsService>();
rightsService.Setup(foo => foo.UserHasRights()).Returns(false);
var enviromnent = new Mock<IEnvironment>();
var rightsChecker = new RightsChecker(rightsService.Object, enviromnent.Object);
rightsChecker.CheckRights();
enviromnent.Verify(foo => foo.Exit(1));
}
Ambient contexts and cross-cutting concerns
A method such as Environment.Exit() could be considered to be a cross-cutting concern, and you might well want to avoid passing around an interface for it because you can end up with an explosion of additional constructor parameters. (Note: The canonical example of a cross cutting concern is DateTime.Now.)
To address this issue, you can introduce an "Ambient context" - a pattern which allows you to use a static method while still retaining the ability to unit test calls to it. Of course, such things should be used sparingly and only for true cross-cutting concerns.
For example, you could introduce an ambient context for Environment like so:
public abstract class EnvironmentControl
{
public static EnvironmentControl Current
{
get
{
return _current;
}
set
{
if (value == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(value));
_current = value;
}
}
public abstract void Exit(int value);
public static void ResetToDefault()
{
_current = DefaultEnvironmentControl.Instance;
}
static EnvironmentControl _current = DefaultEnvironmentControl.Instance;
}
public class DefaultEnvironmentControl : EnvironmentControl
{
public override void Exit(int value)
{
Environment.Exit(value);
}
public static DefaultEnvironmentControl Instance => _instance.Value;
static readonly Lazy<DefaultEnvironmentControl> _instance = new Lazy<DefaultEnvironmentControl>(() => new DefaultEnvironmentControl());
}
Normal code just calls EnvironmentControl.Current.Exit(). With this change, the IEnvironment parameter disappears from the RightsChecker class:
public sealed class RightsChecker
{
readonly IRightsService service;
public RightsChecker(IRightsService service)
{
this.service = service;
}
public void CheckRights()
{
if (!service.UserHasRights())
{
EnvironmentControl.Current.Exit(1);
}
}
}
But we still retain the ability to unit-test that it has been called:
public static void CheckRights_exits_program_when_user_has_no_rights()
{
var rightsService = new Mock<IRightsService>();
rightsService.Setup(foo => foo.UserHasRights()).Returns(false);
var enviromnent = new Mock<EnvironmentControl>();
EnvironmentControl.Current = enviromnent.Object;
try
{
var rightsChecker = new RightsChecker(rightsService.Object);
rightsChecker.CheckRights();
enviromnent.Verify(foo => foo.Exit(1));
}
finally
{
EnvironmentControl.ResetToDefault();
}
}
For more information about ambient contexts, see here.
I ended up creating a new method which I can then mock in my tests.
Code
public void CheckRights()
{
if(!service.UserHasRights())
{
Environment.Exit(1);
}
}
internal virtual void Exit()
{
Environment.Exit(1);
}
Unit test
[TestMethod]
public void TestCheckRightsWithoutRights()
{
MyService service = ...
service.When(svc => svc.Exit()).DoNotCallBase();
...
service.CheckRights();
service.Received(1).Exit();
}
If your goal is to avoid extra classes/interfaces just to support tests, how do you feel about Environment.Exit action via Property Injection?
class RightsChecker
{
public Action AccessDeniedAction { get; set; }
public RightsChecker(...)
{
...
AccessDeniedAction = () => Environment.Exit();
}
}
[Test]
public TestCheckRightsWithoutRights()
{
...
bool wasAccessDeniedActionExecuted = false;
rightsChecker.AccessDeniedAction = () => { wasAccessDeniedActionExecuted = true; }
...
Assert.That(wasAccessDeniedActionExecuted , Is.True);
}
I am working on WPF application.
I use StructureMap to inject dependencies.
There are some service layer classes exist that they give parameter from constructor.
The value that I pass to constructor will change run time.
Presentation layer's classes use services to present data for user. Whenever value has changed I inject service again with new value. But active instance of presentation layer returns previous value.
I've prepared simple example for better understanding.
// static class that keeps some value
public class ValueKeeper
{
public static string Value { get; set; }
}
public interface IService
{
string Value { get; set; }
}
// Service layer class
public class Service : IService
{
// default constructor
public Service(string value)
{
Value = value;
}
#region IService Members
public string Value { get; set; }
#endregion
}
public class Program
{
private readonly IService _service;
//injecting service class
public Program(IService service)
{
_service = service;
}
// structuremap configuration
private static void Config()
{
ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => x.Scan(scanner =>
{
scanner.TheCallingAssembly();
scanner.WithDefaultConventions();
x.For<IService>().CacheBy(InstanceScope.Hybrid).Use(() =>
{
var service = new Service("value1");
return service;
});
}));
}
// structuremap configuration after value changed.
private static void ReConfig()
{
ObjectFactory.Configure(x => x.Scan(scanner =>
{
x.For<IService>().CacheBy(InstanceScope.Hybrid).Use(() =>
{
var service =new Service(ValueKeeper.Value);
return service;
});
}));
}
private string PresentationMethod()
{
return _service.Value;
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
Config(); // Firtst time injecting dependencies
var prog = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Program>();
Console.WriteLine(prog.PresentationMethod()); // returns "value1"
ValueKeeper.Value = "value 2"; //changing static property
ReConfig(); // reconfig service class with new property
Console.WriteLine(prog.PresentationMethod()); // it returns value1 but I expect value2 .
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
Real application contains many presentation and service classes.
How can I change live service instances with new object and value ?
Update :
I saw this link. It seems by using Setter Injection it's possible to change existing object.
Is setter injection my solution ?
You could use the strategy pattern to easily keep track of and switch between instances of the same interface at runtime. Here is a quick example:
var container = new Container(x => x.Scan(scan =>
{
scan.TheCallingAssembly();
scan.WithDefaultConventions();
scan.AddAllTypesOf<IDiscountCalculator>();
}));
var strategy = container.GetInstance<IDiscountStrategy>();
Console.WriteLine(strategy.GetDiscount("Regular", 10)); // 0
Console.WriteLine(strategy.GetDiscount("Normal", 10)); // 1
Console.WriteLine(strategy.GetDiscount("Special", 10)); // 5
which depends on the following types:
public interface IDiscountStrategy
{
decimal GetDiscount(string userType, decimal orderTotal);
}
public class DiscountStrategy : IDiscountStrategy
{
private readonly IDiscountCalculator[] _discountCalculators;
public DiscountStrategy(IDiscountCalculator[] discountCalculators)
{
_discountCalculators = discountCalculators;
}
public decimal GetDiscount(string userType, decimal orderTotal)
{
var calculator = _discountCalculators.FirstOrDefault(x => x.AppliesTo(userType));
if (calculator == null) return 0;
return calculator.CalculateDiscount(orderTotal);
}
}
public interface IDiscountCalculator
{
bool AppliesTo(string userType);
decimal CalculateDiscount(decimal orderTotal);
}
public class NormalUserDiscountCalculator : IDiscountCalculator
{
public bool AppliesTo(string userType)
{
return userType == "Normal";
}
public decimal CalculateDiscount(decimal orderTotal)
{
return orderTotal * 0.1m;
}
}
public class SpecialUserDiscountCalculator : IDiscountCalculator
{
public bool AppliesTo(string userType)
{
return userType == "Special";
}
public decimal CalculateDiscount(decimal orderTotal)
{
return orderTotal * 0.5m;
}
}
Or, if you have short lived dependencies that you want to dispose of right away, you should inject an abstract factory to create them on demand.
public ISomeObjectFactory
{
ISomeObject Create();
void Release(ISomeObject someObject);
}
public class SomeObjectFactory
: ISomeObjectFactory
{
//private readonly IAclModule aclModule;
// Inject dependencies at application startup here
//public SiteMapPluginProviderFactory(
// IAclModule aclModule
// )
//{
// if (aclModule == null)
// throw new ArgumentNullException("aclModule");
//
// this.aclModule = aclModule;
//}
public ISomeObject Create(IState state)
{
return new SomeObject(state);
// return new SomeObject(state, this.aclModule);
}
pubic void Release(ISomeObject someObject)
{
var disposable = someObject as IDisposable;
if (disposable != null)
{
disposable.Dispose();
}
}
}
And then use like:
public class Consumer : IConsumer
{
private readonly ISomeObjectFactory someObjectFactory;
public Consumer(ISomeObjectFactory someObjectFactory)
{
if (someObjectFactory == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("someObjectFactory");
this.someObjectFactory = someObjectFactory;
}
public void DoSomething(IState state)
{
var instance = this.someObjectFactory.Create(state);
try
{
// Use the instance here.
}
finally
{
this.someObjectFactory.Release(instance);
}
}
}
Although not shown here, the factory could switch between different classes if needed, or you could pass a different dependency (the IState in this example) to the same type of class when it is created.
Service Locator is Anti-Pattern and should be avoided in all but the rarest of circumstances.
I'm trying to make a design for some sort of IExecutable interface. I will not get into details, but the point is that I have several Actions that need to be executed from a base class. They may take different parameters (no big deal), and they may/may not return a value.
So far, this is my design:
public abstract class ActionBase
{
// ... snip ...
}
public abstract class ActionWithResultBase<T>: ActionBase
{
public abstract T Execute();
}
public abstract class ActionWithoutResultBase: ActionBase
{
public abstract void Execute();
}
So far, each of my concrete actions need to be a child from either ActionWithResultBase or ActionWithoutResult base, but I really don't like that. If I could move the definition of Execute to ActionBase, considering that the concrete class may or may not return a value, I will have achieved my goal.
Someone told me this could be done with using Func and Action, for which I totally agree, but I can't find a way to have that into one single class so that the caller would know if the action is going to return a value or not.
Brief: I want to do something like:
// Action1.Execute() returns something.
var a = new Action1();
var result = a.Execute();
// Action2.Execute() returns nothing.
var b = new Action2();
b.Execute();
If you want a lightweight solution, then the easiest option would be to write two concrete classes. One will contain a property of type Action and the other a property of type Func<T>:
public class ActionWithResult<T> : ActionBase {
public Func<T> Action { get; set; }
}
public class ActionWithoutResult : ActionBase {
public Action Action { get; set; }
}
Then you can construct the two types like this:
var a1 = new ActionWithResult<int> {
CanExecute = true,
Action = () => {
Console.WriteLine("hello!");
return 10;
}
}
If you don't want to make Action property read/write, then you could pass the action delegate as an argument to the constructor and make the property readonly.
The fact that C# needs two different delegates to represent functions and actions is quite annoying. One workaround that people use is to define a type Unit that represents "no return value" and use it instead of void. Then your type would be just Func<T> and you could use Func<Unit> instead of Action. The Unit type could look like this:
public class Unit {
public static Unit Value { get { return null; } }
}
To create a Func<Unit> value, you'll write:
Func<Unit> f = () => { /* ... */ return Unit.Value; }
The following interfaces should do the trick -- it's essentially copying the Nullable pattern
public interface IActionBase
{
bool HasResult { get; }
void Execute() { }
object Result { get; }
}
public interface IActionBase<T> : IActionBase
{
new T Result { get; }
}
public sealed class ActionWithReturnValue<T> : IActionBase<T>
{
public ActionWithReturnValue(Func<T> action) { _action = action; }
private Func<T> _action;
public bool HasResult { get; private set; }
object IActionBase.Result { get { return this.Result; } }
public T Result { get; private set; }
public void Execute()
{
HasResult = false;
Result = default(T);
try
{
Result = _action();
HasResult = true;
}
catch
{
HasResult = false;
Result = default(T);
}
}
}
public sealed class ActionWithoutReturnValue : IActionBase
{
public bool HasResult { get { return false; } }
object IActionBase.Result { get { return null; } }
public void Execute() { //... }
}
You know that you can ignore the return value of a method right? You don't have to use it.
what about something simple:
public class ActionExecuter
{
private MulticastDelegate del;
public ActionExecuter(MulticastDelegate del)
{
this.del = del;
}
public object Execute(params object[] p)
{
return del.DynamicInvoke(p);
}
}
Suppose I have a base class named Visitor, and it has 2 subclass Subscriber and NonSubscriber.
At first a visitor is start off from a NonSubscriber, i.e.
NonSubscriber mary = new NonSubscriber();
Then later on this "mary" subscribed to some services, and I want to change the type of "mary" to Subscriber.
What is the conventional way to do that?
can't do that. sorry. C# is not a dynamic language.
You will have to create a new mary = new Subscriber(); and copy all relevant properties.
But a better approach might be to model it differently: Give Visitor a list of subscriptions. An empty list means a NonSubscriber.
You cant do this type of conversion.
What you should do is treat mary as a visitor, and when time arrives, create a new instance of "subscriber":
Visitor mary = new NonSubscriber();
// Do some Visitor operations
...
// Now mary is a Subscriber
mary = new Subscriber();
You could use the GOF design patterns State or Strategy to model such an behaviour. Using these patterns, it seems during runtime as if the class of the objects has been changed.
It seems that you have some design problems. I think that it would be better to redesign your code like:
class Visitor
{
private bool isSubscriber = false;
public bool IsSubscriber
{
get { return isSubscriber; }
}
public void Subscribe()
{
// do some subscribing stuff
isSubscriber = true;
}
public void Unsubscribe()
{
// do some unsubscribing stuff
isSubscriber = false;
}
}
You cannot change the type of a variable at runtime. You need to create a new instance.
mary = new Subscriber();
Create a Subscriber constructor that takes a NonSubscriber object as a parameter, or create a method on the NonSubscriber object that returns a Subscriber to save you having to writer the mappping code in multiple places.
It seems like you are encoding information incorrectly into your class hierarchy. It would make more sense to use a different pattern than sub classing here. For example, use only one class (visitor, or perhaps you could name it potential subscriber, whatever seems appropriate) and encode information on the services the object is subscribed to, moving the dynamically changing behavior behind a "Strategy" pattern or some such. There's very little detail in your example, but one thing you could do in C# is to make a "subscriber" property which would change the behavior of the object when the state of the property was changed.
Here's a contrived somewhat related example:
class Price
{
private int priceInCents;
private bool displayCents;
private Func<string> displayFunction;
public Price(int dollars, int cents)
{
priceInCents = dollars*100 + cents;
DisplayCents = true;
}
public bool DisplayCents
{
get { return displayCents; }
set
{
displayCents = value;
if (displayCents)
{
this.displayFunction = () => String.Format("{0}.{1}", priceInCents / 100, priceInCents % 100);
}
else
{
this.displayFunction = () => (priceInCents / 100).ToString();
}
}
}
public string ToString()
{
return this.displayFunction();
}
}
public class User
{
public Subscription Subscription { get; set; }
public void HandleSubscription()
{
Subscription.Method();
}
}
public abstract class SubscriptionType
{
public abstract void Method();
}
public class NoSubscription : SubscriptionType
{
public override void Method()
{
// Do stuff for non subscribers
}
}
public class ServiceSubscription : SubscriptionType
{
public override void Method()
{
// Do stuff for service subscribers
}
}
public class Service2Subscription : SubscriptionType
{
public override void Method()
{
// Do stuff for service2 subscribers
}
}
Think the code explains my answer :)
Adding to the other answers and your comment, you indeed can use the state pattern for your purpose, it would go something like this:
public class MyProgram
{
public void Run()
{
Visitor v = new Visitor("Mary");
Debug.Assert(v.SubscriptionLinkText == "Join now");
v.IsSubscribed = true;
Debug.Assert(v.SubscriptionLinkText == "Today's special");
v.IsSubscribed = false;
Debug.Assert(v.SubscriptionLinkText == "Join now");
}
}
public class Visitor
{
public string Name { get; set; }
private bool _isSubscribed;
public bool IsSubscribed
{
get { return this._isSubscribed; }
set
{
if (value != this._isSubscribed)
{
this._isSubscribed = value;
this.OnSubscriptionChanged();
}
}
}
private SubscriptionBase _subscription;
public string SubscriptionLinkText
{
get { return this._subscription.LinkText; }
}
public Visitor(string name)
{
this.Name = name;
this._isSubscribed = false;
this.OnSubscriptionChanged();
}
private void OnSubscriptionChanged()
{
// Consider also defining an event and raising it here
this._subscription =
SubscriptionBase.GetSubscription(this.IsSubscribed);
}
}
abstract public class SubscriptionBase
{
// Factory method to get instance
static public SubscriptionBase GetSubscription(bool isSubscribed)
{
return isSubscribed ?
new Subscription() as SubscriptionBase
: new NoSubscription() as SubscriptionBase;
}
abstract public string LinkText { get; }
}
public class Subscription : SubscriptionBase
{
public override string LinkText
{
get { return "Today's Special"; }
}
}
public class NoSubscription : SubscriptionBase
{
public override string LinkText
{
get { return "Join now"; }
}
}