When I'm using the factory pattern, I'm confused with how to make child classes from it when the child has extra properties/methods. The factory returns the parent type as it works out which child to make but when this happens I can't use what it returns like a child class.
public abstract class Factory
{
public abstract Person getPerson(string type);
}
public class PersonFactory : Factory
{
public override Person getPerson(string type) {
switch (type) {
case "admin":
return new Admin();
case "customer":
return new Customer();
default:
return new Admin();
}
}
}
public abstract class Person
{
public abstract string Type { get; }
private int _id;
public int Id
{
get { return _id; }
set { _id = value; }
}
}
public class Admin : Person
{
private string _securityRole;
public Admin()
{
Id = 0;
}
public override string Type
{
get{
return "admin";
}
}
public string SecurityRole
{
get { return _securityRole; }
set { _securityRole = value; }
}
}
So my question is, when I create a PersonFactory object and decide to use that factory to create other derived classes. I noticed that getPerson() returns Person and not actually type Admin or Customer. How can I make the factory create the child classes so that they are actually child objects?
Factory pf = new PersonFactory();
Person admin = pf.getPerson("admin");
admin.Id = 1; // is fine
admin.SecurityRole // cannot access
quick fix is this
Admin admin = (Admin)pf.getPerson("admin");
but better implementation is
1) use static method for your factory class.
2) use generic and interface.
your new code will be:
public class PersonFactory //: Factory
{
public static T getPerson<T>() where T: IPerson
{
return Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
}
}
public interface IPerson
{
string Type { get; }
int Id { get; set; }
}
public class Admin : IPerson
{
private string _securityRole;
public Admin()
{
Id = 0;
}
public string Type
{
get
{
return "admin";
}
}
public string SecurityRole
{
get { return _securityRole; }
set { _securityRole = value; }
}
public int Id
{
get;set;
}
}
public class Customer : IPerson
{
private string _securityRole;
public Customer()
{
Id = 0;
}
public string Type
{
get
{
return "customer";
}
}
public string SecurityRole
{
get { return _securityRole; }
set { _securityRole = value; }
}
public int Id
{
get;set;
}
}
and how to use:
Admin a = PersonFactory.getPerson<Admin>();
Customer b = PersonFactory.getPerson<Customer>();
The reason you cannot access the property is because you are expecting a return type of Person for this line of code:
Person admin = pf.getPerson("admin");
Person does not contain a definition of SecurityRole. Because you are defining the return type to be Person your result is effectively cast back to a Person object not an Admin object.
You should be able to fix this by going:
var admin = pf.getPerson("admin");
or by using:
Admin admin = pf.getPerson("admin");
Since .id is working but not .SecurityRole I think it's safe to say that you made a Person and not an Admin.
Try Admin admin = pf.getPerson("admin"); instead of Person admin = pf.getPerson("admin");
Related
So my dilemma is that in order to access IntThing's or StringThing's MyProperty from UtilityThing<T>, I'm defining an interface with MyProperty and using it as the generic constraint on T in UtilityThing<T>. This is working, but seems redundant given that the same property is already defined in the abstract base. Am I missing a facet of design here, or is this actually the way it needs to be done in this instance?
public interface IThing {
string MyProperty { get; set; }
}
public abstract class Thing<T> {
protected string _MyProperty;
public abstract string MyProperty { get; set; }
public T OtherProperty { get; set; }
public string CommonMethod() {
return MyProperty + "foobar";
}
}
public class IntThing : Thing<int?>, IThing {
public override string MyProperty {
get { return _MyProperty; }
set { _MyProperty = value + OtherProperty.ToString(); }
}
}
public class StringThing: Thing<string>, IThing {
public override string MyProperty {
get { return _MyProperty; }
set { _MyProperty = OtherProperty + value; }
}
}
public class UtilityThing<T> where T: IThing, new() {
public T DoIt(SomeContext someContext, string name) {
string contextVal = someContext.GetValue(name);
var thing = new T { MyProperty = contextVal }
return thing;
}
}
You'll need to introduce a new generic type. Once the new type is introduced you can eliminate the need of the interface.
public class UtilityThing<T, I> where T : Thing<I>, new()
{
public T DoIt(SomeContext someContext, string name)
{
string contextVal = someContext.GetValue(name);
var thing = new T { MyProperty = contextVal };
return thing;
}
}
And you can use it like this:
var utility = new UtilityThing<IntThing, int?>();
So I have got these 2 instance types "FirstType" and "SecondType" which inherit from the mother class "ContaBancaria". They both return text from different textboxes. Basically, they do the same thing, but I need 2 instances for 2 different list types (I probably don't think the list has anything to do with my question, so I'll proceed not to go in detail)
Here are the instances:
private FirstType AddTypeFirst()
{
return new FirstType(textBoxNumber.Text,
textBoxBalance.Text,
textBoxName.Text,
textBoxAddress.Text,
textBoxBirth.Text);
}
private SecondType AddTypeSecond()
{
return new SecondType(textBoxNumber.Text,
textBoxBalance.Text,
textBoxName.Text,
textBoxAddress.Text,
textBoxBirth.Text);
}
Is there a way to return these 2 instances with the same method type?
EDIT:
What I meant was to return these 2 different types of instances with 1 single method, for example:
private [type?] AddInstance()
{
return new [type*] textBoxNumber.Text, //* the type could be FirstType or SecondType
textBoxBalance.Text,
textBoxName.Text,
textBoxAddress.Text,
textBoxBirth.Text);
}
EDIT 2:
ContaBancaria looks like this:
abstract class ContaBancaria
{
public string number { get; set; }
public string balance { get; set; }
public Client data { get; set; }
}
And, since there's Client...
class Client
{
public string name;
public string address;
public string birth;
}
Hope you get me.
You can use generic method and derrived classes I think.
For example, you have two classes and you want to receive one of them. Those classes are named "FirstSon" and "SecondSon" and both of them are derrived from class "Father".
class Father
{
string myName;
public string MyName
{
get { return myName; }
set { myName = value; }
}
public Father()
{
myName = "John";
}
}
class FirstSon : Father
{
string mySecondName;
public string MySecondName
{
get { return mySecondName; }
set { mySecondName = value; }
}
public FirstSon()
{
mySecondName = "Bill";
}
}
class SecondSon : Father
{
int age;
public int Age
{
get { return age; }
set { age = value; }
}
string mySecondName;
public string MySecondName
{
get { return mySecondName; }
set { mySecondName = value; }
}
public SecondSon()
{
mySecondName = "Drake";
age = 21;
}
}
And you have method GetObject(). This method is generic. It receives type of class, then checks what type it has received and returnes the new object with the same type.
public static T GetObject<T>() where T: Father
{
var firstSon = new FirstSon();
var secondSon = new SecondSon();
if (firstSon.GetType() == typeof(T))
return (T)Convert.ChangeType(firstSon, typeof(T));
return (T)Convert.ChangeType(secondSon, typeof(T));
}
It uses method Convert.ChangeType(object value, Type conversonType) and allows you to convert your object to your type.
But I am not convinced that this is a good idea according to How do I make the return type of a method generic?
Assuming you want to return the proper type based on the list being added to, you will need to write your own generic Add function, and use Reflection to figure out the type:
public static class Ext {
public static void AddInstancia<T>(this List<T> aList) where T : class {
if (typeof(T) == typeof(FirstType))
aList.Add(AddTypeFirst() as T);
else
aList.Add(AddTypeSecond() as T);
}
}
I see no good reason to do this - after all, you know the type of the list, just call the correct function for that list...
Instead of using Reflection, you could also use dynamic if you add some functions to each sub-type:
public class FirstType : Parent {
public FirstType MakeChild() {
return new FirstType();
}
}
public class SecondType : Parent {
public SecondType MakeChild() {
return new SecondType();
}
}
public static class Static<T> where T : new() {
public static dynamic Value = new T();
}
public static class Ext {
public static void AddInstance<T>(this List<T> aList) where T : new() {
aList.Add(Static<T>.Value.MakeChild());
}
}
Which you can call like
var list1 = new List<FirstType>();
list1.AddInstance();
I want to create builder for my purpose, with such call chain:
User user = new CommonBuilder(new UserNode()).Root //generic parameter, currently is User
.Group.Group.Folder.Build();
Here is the code, which I use:
public abstract class AbstractNode
{
public Guid Id { get; } = Guid.NewGuid();
}
public abstract class AbstractNode<T> where T : AbstractNode<T>
{
}
public class CommonBuilder<T> where T : AbstractNode<T>
{
public T Root { get; private set; }
public CommonBuilder(T root)
{
Root = root;
}
}
public class UserNode : AbstractNode<UserNode>
{
private GroupNode _group;
public GroupNode Group
{
get
{
if (_group is null)
{
_group = new GroupNode();
}
return _group;
}
}
}
public class GroupNode : AbstractNode<GroupNode>
{
private GroupNode _group;
public GroupNode Group
{
get
{
if (_group is null)
{
_group = new GroupNode();
}
return _group;
}
}
private FolderNode _folder;
public FolderNode Folder
{
get
{
if (_folder is null)
{
_folder = new FolderNode();
}
return _folder;
}
}
}
public class FolderNode : AbstractNode<FolderNode>
{
}
The problem is in the Build() method, which need to return Root from CommonBuilder, not the File.
Where must I place Build() method, which must be always called at the end of a chain, which returns Root of a builder?
In case when it's required to make a chain the same object should be returned, even as another interface check first and second examples of implementation Builder with Fluent intefaces
I've tried to implement your case to fit the role, check if it will fits your requirements:
public interface IGroup<T>
{
IGroup<T> Group { get; }
IFolder<T> Folder { get; }
}
public interface IFolder<T>
{
T Build();
}
Builder implements all required interfaces. And returns itself in each call. In general you can put Build method in the builder itself and call it separately after the end of chain execution.
public class CommonBuilder<T> : IGroup<T>, IFolder<T> where T: INode, new()
{
private T _root = new T();
public T Build()
{
return _root;
}
public IGroup<T> Group
{
get
{
_root.MoveToGroup();
return this;
}
}
public IFolder<T> Folder
{
get
{
_root.MoveToFolder();
return this;
}
}
}
Because of generics it's required to set some limitations on generic parameter which is done with INode interface
public interface INode
{
void MoveToGroup();
void MoveToFolder();
}
Testing user object
public class User : INode
{
public StringBuilder Path { get; } = new StringBuilder();
public void MoveToFolder()
{
Path.AppendLine("Folder");
}
public void MoveToGroup()
{
Path.AppendLine("Group");
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Path.ToString();
}
}
And the call will looks like
var user = new CommonBuilder<User>().Group.Group.Folder.Build();
EDIT
Maybe as a the first stage it makes sence to get rid of Fluent interfaces and implement logic using just a Builder:
public class FolderNode : INode<Folder>
{
private readonly Folder _folder = new Folder();
public Folder Build()
{
return _folder;
}
public void AppendGroup()
{
_folder.Path.AppendLine("Folder Group");
}
public void AppendFolder()
{
_folder.Path.AppendLine("Folder Folder");
}
}
public class UserNode : INode<User>
{
private readonly User _user = new User();
public User Build()
{
return _user;
}
public void AppendGroup()
{
_user.Path.AppendLine("Group");
}
public void AppendFolder()
{
_user.Path.AppendLine("Folder");
}
}
public class CommonBuilder<T, TNode> where TNode : INode<T>
{
private readonly TNode _root;
public CommonBuilder(TNode root)
{
_root = root;
}
public T Build()
{
return _root.Build();
}
public CommonBuilder<T, TNode> Group {
get
{
_root.AppendGroup();
return this;
}
}
public CommonBuilder<T, TNode> Folder {
get
{
_root.AppendFolder();
return this;
}
}
}
public interface INode<out T>
{
T Build();
void AppendGroup();
void AppendFolder();
}
public class Folder
{
public StringBuilder Path { get; } = new StringBuilder();
public override string ToString()
{
return Path.ToString();
}
}
public class User
{
public StringBuilder Path { get; } = new StringBuilder();
public override string ToString()
{
return Path.ToString();
}
}
Usage:
var user = new CommonBuilder<User, UserNode>(new UserNode()).Group.Group.Folder.Build();
var folder = new CommonBuilder<Folder, FolderNode>(new FolderNode()).Group.Folder.Group.Folder.Build();
I have the following C# code. Here the validations are kept outside the class to satisfy Open – Closed Principle. This is working fine. But the challenge is – the validations are not generic. It is specific to employee class (E.g DateOfBirthRuleForEmployee). How do I make the validations generic for all objects (DateOfBirthRuleForAnyObject).
Note: Make Generic <==> Make Type-Independent
Note: I have NameLengthRuleForEmployee validation also. New validation may come in future.
EDIT
Generic Method Example: Using “OfType” in LINQ
CODE
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Employee employee = new Employee();
employee.DateOfBirth = DateTime.Now;
employee.Name = "Lijo";
DateOfBirthRuleForEmployee dobRule = new
DateOfBirthRuleForEmployee();
NameLengthRuleForEmployee nameRule = new
NameLengthRuleForEmployee();
EmployeeManager employeeManager = new EmployeeManager();
employeeManager.AddRules(dobRule);
employeeManager.AddRules(nameRule);
bool result = employeeManager.validateEntity(employee);
Console.WriteLine(result);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public interface IEntity
{
}
public interface IRule<TEntity>
{
bool IsValid(TEntity entity);
}
public class DateOfBirthRuleForEmployee : IRule<Employee>
{
public bool IsValid(Employee entity)
{
return (entity.DateOfBirth.Year <= 1975);
}
}
public class NameLengthRuleForEmployee : IRule<Employee>
{
public bool IsValid(Employee employee)
{
return (employee.Name.Length < 5);
}
}
public class Employee : IEntity
{
private DateTime dateOfBirth;
private string name;
public DateTime DateOfBirth
{
get
{
return dateOfBirth;
}
set
{
dateOfBirth = value;
}
}
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
}
public class EmployeeManager
{
RulesEngine<Employee> engine = new RulesEngine<Employee>();
public void AddRules(IRule<Employee> rule)
{
engine.AddRules(rule);
//engine.AddRules(new NameLengthRuleForEmployee());
}
public bool validateEntity(Employee employee)
{
List<IRule<Employee>> rulesList = engine.GetRulesList();
//No need for type checking. Overcame Invariance problem
bool status = true;
foreach (IRule<Employee> theRule in rulesList)
{
if (!theRule.IsValid(employee))
{
status = false;
break;
}
}
return status;
}
}
public class RulesEngine<TEntity> where TEntity : IEntity
{
private List<IRule<TEntity>> ruleList = new
List<IRule<TEntity>>();
public void AddRules(IRule<TEntity> rule)
{
//invariance is the key term
ruleList.Add(rule);
}
public List<IRule<TEntity>> GetRulesList()
{
return ruleList;
}
}
The challange is for your rules to know which property of what type to validate. You can either provide this by implementing an interface that provides just that as suggested by SLaks or by quessing it dynamically or by providing a concrete rule class with a bit more information on how to access the given property, e.g.:
class NameRule<T> : IRule<T>
{
private Func<T, string> _nameAccessor;
public NameRule(Func<T, string> nameAccessor)
{
_nameAccessor = nameAccessor;
}
public bool IsValid(T instance)
{
return _nameAccessor(instance).Length > 10;
}
}
this ofcourse can be used in the following way:
NameRule<Employee> employeeNameRule = new NameRule<Employee>(x => x.name);
employeeManager.addRule(employeeNameRule);
I have a class Client like that:
public class Client
{
public Person Pers { get; set; }
}
And I have 2 Person´s child class :
public class PersonType1 : Person {...}
public class PersonType2 : Person {...}
So, my Client could be PersonType1 or PersonType2...
I load 2 Client using NHibernate... And after that, I´m trying to compare than (the difference are on PersonType1 and PersonType2 attributes)...
I tried that:
public class ClientComparer : IComparer<Client>
{
public int Compare(Client __c1, Client __c2)
{
string _name1 = __c1.Person.GetType().Equals(typeof(PersonType2)) ? ((PersonType2)(__c1.Person)).Type2Att : ((PersonType1)(__c1.Person)).Type1Att ;
string _name2 = __c2.Person.GetType().Equals(typeof(PersonType2)) ? ((PersonType2)(__c2.Person)).Type2Att : ((PersonType1)(__c2.Person)).Type1Att;
if (_name1 == null)
{
if (_name2 == null)
{
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
if (_name2 == null)
{
return 1;
}
return _name1.CompareTo(_name2);
}
}
The problem is that __c1.Person.GetType() returs PersonProxy127b2a2f44f446089b336892a673643b instead of the correct type... It´s because of NHibernate...
How can I do that ? Ideas?
Thanks
Rather than having two different attributes on PersonType1 and PersonType2, define a single property in the base class Person and override it in each of the child classes. Using polymorphic behavior rather than explicit type-checking is better in any case, and essential when you're using NHibernate's proxied classes. Something like this might accomplish what you want:
public class Person
{
public string Name {get;}
}
public class PersonType2 : Person
{
private string something;
public override string Name
{
get
{
return something;
}
set
{
something = value;
}
}
}
public class PersonType2 : Person
{
private string somethingElse;
public override string Name
{
get
{
return somethingElse;
}
set
{
somethingElse = value;
}
}
}
public class Client
{
public int Compare(Client __c1, Client __c2)
{
return __c1.Pers.Name.CompareTo(__c2.Pers.Name);
}
}
Use the is operator instead of GetType():
public class ClientComparer : IComparer<Client>
{
public int Compare(Client __c1, Client __c2)
{
string _name1 = GetName(__c1.Person);
string _name2 = GetName(__c2.Person);
if (_name1 == null)
{
if (_name2 == null)
{
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
if (_name2 == null)
{
return 1;
}
return _name1.CompareTo(_name2);
}
private string GetName(Person person)
{
if (person is Person1)
{
return ((Person1)person).Type1Att;
}
else if (person is Person2)
{
return ((Person2)person).Type2Att;
}
else
{
throw new ArgumentException("Unhandled Person type.");
}
}
}