Instantiating a generic field of a class

Instantiating a generic field of a class - c#

Is there a way to have a generic field in a class to specialize to a specific type in the constructor?
For example:
class concreteClass1
{
private int a;
public concreteClass1( int a)
{
this.a = a;
}
}
class concreteClass2
{
string b;
public concreteClass2(string b)
{
this.b = b;
}
}
class A<T>
{
private T field;
public A(int x)
{
field = new concreteClass1(x); //error here CS0029
}
public A(string y)
{
field = new concreteClass2(y); //error here CS0029
}
}
So T can be either concreteClass1 or concreteClass1 and their respective ctors will have different signatures.

I would refactor this to use dependency injection. That way the class doesn't contain code to create other classes that it depends on, like myConcreteField = new ConcreteA<T>(4);. Dependency injection is used to keep code from getting tied into difficult knots like this.
(Your example is very, very abstract, which makes it a little difficult. If you use class names like "Concrete" and "Implementation" then it makes the answer harder to read because we use those same words to describe concepts.)
Instead, whatever that Concrete thing is, declare an interface, like
public interface ISomethingThatTheOtherClassNeeds<T>
{
public int MySomething {get;set;}
}
public class SomethingThatTheOtherClassNeeds : ISomethingThatTheOtherClassNeeds<string>
{
public int MySomething {get;set;}
}
Then in your Implementation class:
class Implementation<T>
{
private readonly ISomethingThatTheOtherClassNeeds<T> _something;
public Implementation(ISomethingThatTheOtherClassNeeds<T> something)
{
_something = something;
}
void DoSomething()
{
Console.Write(_something.MySomething.ToString());
}
}
The difference is that instead of being responsible for creating whatever that class is, it's passed to Implementation in the constructor. Implementation doesn't even know what the class is - it just knows that it matches the interface.
This is especially helpful if those other classes in turn depend on more classes. If you're creating them by calling new in your class then that class has to know how to create those classes.
Then to wire it up you would use a dependency injection container like Windsor, Unity, Autofac, and many more. That's not very commonly done with console applications, but I'm guessing this is more experimental than real.

Well this was a bit tricky due to having to convert types. Maybe this will work for you?
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var myImplementation = new Implementation<int>(4);
var myImplementation2 = new Implementation<string>("Hello World");
Console.WriteLine(myImplementation.myConcreteField); // outputs 4!
Console.WriteLine(myImplementation2.myConcreteField); // outputs Hello World
}
}
abstract class MyAbstract<T>
{
public T MySomething;
public MyAbstract(T something)
{
MySomething = something;
}
}
class ConcreteA<T> : MyAbstract<T>
{
public ConcreteA(int something) : base((T)Convert.ChangeType(something, typeof(T)))
{
}
}
class ConcreteB<T> : MyAbstract<T>
{
public ConcreteB(string something) : base((T)Convert.ChangeType(something, typeof(T)))
{
}
}
class Implementation<T>
{
public MyAbstract<T> myConcreteField;
public Implementation(T a)
{
myConcreteField = new ConcreteA<T>(4);
}
void DoSomething()
{
Console.Write(myConcreteField.MySomething.ToString());
}
}

Related

Casting to a generic interface [duplicate]

I have the following classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView<T> : UserControl
where T : BaseViewPresenter { }
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter> { }
I have a method that looks like this (simplified)
public BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> Resolve(BaseViewPresenter model)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
// Correctly creates BaseView object
var control = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType);
// Fails to cast as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> so returns null
return control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>;
}
When I call this using an instances of LoginPresenter
var login = new LoginPresenter();
var ctl = Resolve(login);
The line Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) correctly resolves into a new instances of my LoginView, however control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> can't do the cast correctly so returns null.
Is there a way to correctly cast the control into BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> without using specific type generics?
Since LoginView inherits from BaseView<LoginPresenter>, and LoginPresenter inherits from BaseViewPresenter, I would assume there's a way to convert LoginView to BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>.
I am stuck with using .Net 3.5

This is a very frequently asked question. Let's rename your types:
abstract class Fruit { } // was BaseViewPresenter
abstract class FruitBowl<T> where T : Fruit // was BaseView
class Apple : Fruit { } // was LoginPresenter
class BowlOfApples : FruitBowl<Apple> { } // was LoginView
Your question now is:
I have a BowlOfApples, which inherits from FruitBowl<Apple>. Why can I not use it as a FruitBowl<Fruit>? An apple is a fruit, so a bowl of apples is a bowl of fruit.
No, it isn't. You can put a banana in a bowl of fruit, but you can't put a banana in a bowl of apples, and therefore a bowl of apples is not a bowl of fruit. (And by similar argument, a bowl of fruit is not a bowl of apples either.) Since the operations you can legally perform on the two types are different, they cannot be compatible.
Here is a photo of StackOverflow legend Jon Skeet demonstrating this fact:
The feature you want is called generic contravariance, and it is supported only on interfaces and delegate types when the compiler can prove that the variance is safe, and when the varying type is a reference type. For example, you can use an IEnumerable<Apple> in a context where IEnumerable<Fruit> is needed because the compiler can verify that there is no way that you can put a Banana into a sequence of fruit.
Do a search on "C# covariance and contravariance" on this site or on the web and you'll find many more details about how this feature works. In particular, my series of articles on how we designed and implemented this feature in C# 4 starts here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/16/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-one.aspx

I accepted Eric's answer since it provides a great explanation of why what I wanted wasn't possible, but I also thought I'd share my solution in case anyone else runs into this same problem.
I removed the generic type parameter from my original BaseView class, and created a 2nd version of the BaseView class that included the generic type parameter and specifics for it.
The first version is used by my .Resolve() method or other code that doesn't care about the specific types, and the second version is used by any code that does care, such as the implentation of a BaseView
Here's an example of how my code ended up looking
// base classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView : UserControl
{
public BaseViewPresenter Presenter { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseView<T> : BaseView
where T : BaseViewPresenter
{
public new T Presenter
{
get { return base.Presenter as T; }
set { base.Presenter = value; }
}
}
// specific classes
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter>
{
// Can now call things like Presenter.LoginPresenterMethod()
}
// updated .Resolve method used for obtaining UI object
public BaseView Resolve(BaseViewPresenter presenter)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
BaseView view = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) as BaseView;
view.Presenter = presenter;
return view;
}

You're expecting to treat the type as being covariant with respect to the generic argument. Classes can never be covariant; you'd need to use an interface rather than (or in addition to) an abstract class to make it covariant with respect to T. You'd also need to be using C# 4.0.

My usual solution to this problem is to create an intermediary class that has access to the type-parametric class's methods through delegates. Fields can also be accessed through getters/setters.
The general pattern goes:
public abstract class Super {}
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
public MyGeneralType AsGeneralType() {
return MyGeneralType.Create(this);
}
// Depending on the context, an implicit cast operator might make things
// look nicer, though it might be too subtle to some tastes.
public static implicit operator MyGeneralType(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
public int field;
public void MyMethod1() {}
public void MyMethod2(int argument) {}
public abstract bool MyMethod3(string argument);
}
public delegate T Getter<T>();
public delegate void Setter<T>(T value);
public delegate void MyMethod1Del();
public delegate void MyMethod2Del(int argument);
public delegate bool MyMethod3Del(string argument);
public class MyGeneralType {
public Getter<int> FieldGetter;
public Setter<int> FieldSetter;
public MyMethod1Del MyMethod1;
public MyMethod2Del MyMethod2;
public MyMethod3Del MyMethod3;
public static MyGeneralType Create<T>(MyAbstractType<T> t) where T : Super {
var g = new MyGeneralType();
g.FieldGetter = delegate { return t.field; };
g.FieldSetter = value => { t.field = value; };
g.MyMethod1 = t.MyMethod1;
g.MyMethod2 = t.MyMethod2;
g.MyMethod3 = t.MyMethod3;
return g;
}
public int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
The above exemplifies getting all the methods and fields but normally I only need a few of them. This is a general solution to the problem and one could feasibly write a tool to generate these intermediary classes automatically, which I might at some point.
Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/tLkmgR
Note that this is enough for all my cases, but you can be extra hacky with this:
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
// ... Same everything else ...
// data fields must become abstract getters/setters, unfortunate
public abstract int field {
get;
set;
}
public static implicit operator MyAbstractType<Super>(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
}
public class MyGeneralType : MyAbstractType<Super> {
// ... same constructors and setter/getter
// fields but only keep method fields
// that contain the method references for
// implementations of abstract classes,
// and rename them not to clash with the
// actual method names ...
public MyMethod3Del myMethod3Ref;
// Implement abstract methods by calling the corresponding
// method references.
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
return myMethod3Ref(argument);
}
// Same getters/setters but with override keyword
public override int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
And there you go, now you can literally cast a MyAbstractType<Sub> where Sub : Super to a MyAbstractType<Super>, although it's no longer the same object anymore, but it does retain the same methods and data, it's sort of a complex pointer.
public class Sub : Super {}
public class MySubType : MyAbstractType<Sub> {
public int _field;
public override int field {
get { return _field; }
set { _field = value; }
}
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
Console.WriteLine("hello " + argument);
return argument == "world";
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
MyAbstractType<Sub> sub = new MyAbstractType<Sub>();
MyAbstractType<Super> super = sub;
super.MyMethod3("hello"); // calls sub.MyMethod3();
super.field = 10; // sets sub.field
}
}
This isn't as good in my opinion, the other version of MyGeneralType is a more straighforward layer over the concrete types, plus it doesn't require rewriting the data fields, but it does actually answer the question, technically. Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/S3r3ke
Example
Using these abstract classes:
public abstract class Animal {
public string name;
public Animal(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
public abstract string Sound();
}
public abstract class AnimalHouse<T> where T : Animal {
List<T> animals;
public AnimalHouse(T[] animals) {
this.animals = animals.ToList();
}
public static implicit operator GeneralAnimalHouse(AnimalHouse<T> house) {
return GeneralAnimalHouse.Create(house);
}
public List<string> HouseSounds() {
return animals.Select(animal => animal.Sound()).ToList();
}
}
We make this "general" variant:
public delegate List<string> HouseSoundsDel();
public class GeneralAnimalHouse {
public HouseSoundsDel HouseSounds;
public static GeneralAnimalHouse Create<T>(AnimalHouse<T> house) where T : Animal {
var general = new GeneralAnimalHouse();
general.HouseSounds = house.HouseSounds;
return general;
}
}
And finally with these inheritors:
public class Dog : Animal {
public Dog(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": woof";
}
}
public class Cat : Animal {
public Cat(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": meow";
}
}
public class DogHouse : AnimalHouse<Dog> {
public DogHouse(params Dog[] dogs) : base(dogs) {}
}
public class CatHouse : AnimalHouse<Cat> {
public CatHouse(params Cat[] cats) : base(cats) {}
}
We use it like this:
public class AnimalCity {
List<GeneralAnimalHouse> houses;
public AnimalCity(params GeneralAnimalHouse[] houses) {
this.houses = houses.ToList();
}
public List<string> CitySounds() {
var random = new Random();
return houses.SelectMany(house => house.HouseSounds())
.OrderBy(x => random.Next())
.ToList();
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
var fluffy = new Cat("Fluffy");
var miu = new Cat("Miu");
var snuffles = new Cat("Snuffles");
var snoopy = new Dog("Snoopy");
var marley = new Dog("Marley");
var megan = new Dog("Megan");
var catHouse = new CatHouse(fluffy, miu, snuffles);
var dogHouse = new DogHouse(snoopy, marley, megan);
var animalCity = new AnimalCity(catHouse, dogHouse);
foreach (var sound in animalCity.CitySounds()) {
Console.WriteLine(sound);
}
}
}
Output:
Miu: meow
Snoopy: woof
Snuffles: meow
Fluffy: meow
Marley: woof
Megan: woof
Notes:
I added names so it's clear that the method references carry their owner's data with them, for those unfamiliar with delegates.
The required using statements for this code are System, System.Collections.Generic, and System.Linq.
You can try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/6qkHL3#
A version that makes GeneralAnimalHouse a subclass of AnimalHouse<Animal> can be found here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/XS0ljg

Mapping classes c#

I am writing a tranformer that takes some input and gives an output.I need to call a specific tranformer based on my input type.
public static myentrypoint( template t);
{
//I could do something like this.
switch(t)
{
case t1:
transformt1(..);
case t2:
transformt1(..);
....
}
}
Trasform1 : Itransform
{
tranform1(...);
}
Trasform2 : Itransform
{
tranform2(...);
}
I need to map which function to call based on what my template is. I can do a switch but are there more cleaner ways to do this using some design patterns ? I was thinking a of writing a static dictionary. I am new to OOP so any suggestions would be great.

If template is a class, and each template potentially has a different transform, then why not just include the transform function inside of your template class?
public static myentrypoint( ITemplate t);
{
t.transform();
}

The way that I do these types of situations is through the use of Generics. (Shameless self-promotion of a blog post)
Basically, you'll have your base class set up like this:
public abstract class Transformer<T>
where T : Template
{
public abstract void Transform(T item);
}
Then you derive for each of your types like this:
public class Transformer1 : Tansformer<Template1>
{
public void Transform(Template1 item)
{
}
}
public class Transformer2 : Transformer<Template2>
{
public void Transform(Template2 item)
{
}
}
Then you'll just need a factory to give you the correct Transformer.
public class TransformFactory
{
public Transformer<T> GetTransformer<T>(T item)
{
if (item is Template1)
return new Transformer1();
else if (item is Template2)
return new Transformer2();
// ...
}
}
The benefit of this approach is that you'll be able to encapsulate all behavior on that specific type in the concrete implementations. If there is any common behavior on them all, you can do that in the abstract base.

Invoking methods based on a parameter without switch-case statements in C#
In OOP, based on the [open/close principle] which says that software entities such as classes and functions should be open for extension, but closed
for modification.
Methods which use switch-case statement would call this principle into question. In order to implement this principle inside the codes without
causing changes in their functionality.
We use a pattern named "Delegate Dictionary Pattern".
For example, we have an entity named Template that keep input values as well as some of Transform classes for processing this Template.
Template class for keeping input value
public class Template
{
public int TransformNo { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
}
ITransform interface for transform abstract
public interface ITransform
{
void Do(Template template);
}
Transform1 as a concrete class of ITransform
public class Transform1 : ITransform
{
public void Do(Template template)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Transform : {template.TransformNo}, TemplateTitle : { template.Title}");
}
}
Transform2 as a concrete class of ITransform
public class Transform2 : ITransform
{
public void Do(Template template)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Transform : {template.TransformNo}, TemplateTitle : { template.Title}");
}
}
TransformCordinator class for coordinating template of *ITransformer**
public class TransformCordinator
{
Dictionary<int, Action<Template>> transformMap = new Dictionary<int, Action<Template>>();
public TransformCordinator()
{
transformMap.Add(1, x => new Transform1().Do(x));
transformMap.Add(2, x => new Transform2().Do(x));
}
public void Do(Template template)
{
transformMap[template.TransformNo](template);
}
}
// example
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var transformCordinator = new TransformCordinator();
transformCordinator.Do(new Template() { TransformNo = 1, Title = "Hi!" });
Console.ReadLine();
}
}

C# abstract generic method call

With the abstract following class:
public abstract class A
{
public static string MyMethod()
{
return "a";
}
}
Why can't I built this derived abstract class:
public class B<T> where T : A
{
public void AnotherMethod()
{
var S1 = base.MyMethod(); // not allowed
var S2 = T.MyMethod(); // not allowed
}
}
I don't understand why since MyMethod will be available in type T.

There are two misconceptions in your question that collectively prevent both your attempts from working.
First your B class is not in any way derived from the A class, you have only said that it takes a generic parameter that must inherit from A.
Second as the user #recursive pointed out, static methods do not participate in inheritance so MyMethod would only ever be available as A.MyMethod()
You can make at least your first attempt work if you remove the static modifier and make B inherit from A instead of using generics.
// Removed the static modifier
public abstract class A
{
public string MyMethod()
{
return "a";
}
}
// Made B inherit directly from A
public class B : A
{
public void AnotherMethod()
{
var S1 = base.MyMethod(); //base technically isn't required
}
}

Aside from the fact that A.MyMethod is static, which clearly will not work since anything static does not take part in inheritance, even if you made it not static it still will not work. For example, this will not work either:
public abstract class A {
public string MyMethod() {
return "a";
}
}
public class B<T> where T : A {
public void AnotherMethod() {
var S1 = base.MyMethod(); // Line 1
var S2 = T.MyMethod(); // Line 2
}
}
Why?
You are saying where T : A which means that type T has to be a derived type from A. Your class B<T is not a derived type of A so Line 1 will not work.
But why is Line 2 not working?
T is a type and if T is inheriting A, then objects of type T will be able to do that. If you changed it like this, then it will work:
public abstract class A {
public string MyMethod() {
return "a";
}
}
public class B<T> where T : A {
public void AnotherMethod(T t) {
t.MyMethod();
}
}
public class C : A {
}
public class BClosed : B<C> {
public void Foo(C c) {
c.MyMethod();
this.AnotherMethod(c);
}
}
In the above code, C derives A which was your restriction. Then BClosed closes the generic type saying T is C so now you can call MyMethod of A and AnotherMethod of your generic.
Also, when you have a generic class you should use the generic type otherwise I do not see the use. So this is useless since it has no generic code:
public class B<T> where T : A {
public void AnotherMethod() {
}
}

What OOP pattern to use when only adding new methods, not data?

In my app, I have deal with several different "parameters", which derive from IParameter interface, and also ParamBase abstract base class. I currently have two different parameter types, call them FooParameter and BarParameter, which both derive from ParamBase. Obviously, I can treat them both as IParameters when I need to deal with them generically, or detect their specific type when I need to handle their specific functionality.
My question lies in specific FooParameters. I currently have a few specific ones with their own classes which derive from FooParameter, we'll call them FP12, FP13, FP14, etc. These all have certain characteristics, which make me treat them differently in the UI. (Most have names associated with the individual bits, or ranges of bits). Note that these specific, derived FP's have no additional data associated with them, only properties (which refer to the same data in different ways) or methods.
Now, I'd like to keep all of these parameters in a Dictionary<String, IParameter> for easy generic access. The problem is, if I want to refer to a specific one with the special GUI functions, I can't write:
FP12 fp12 = (FP12)paramList["FP12"] because you can't downcast to a derived type (rightfully so). But in my case, I didn't add any data, so the cast would theoretically work.
What type of programming model should I be using instead? Thanks!

There's nothing really wrong with this approach, except for maybe storing the parameters in a dictionary. What is the purpose of doing that? Especially if you key them on their class name.
I would just use a List<IParameter> and have a control go through the collection and pick the right subclass out of there.
m_Parameters = new List<IParameter>();
//This control needs FP12
foreach(var param in Parameters) {
var fp12 = param as FP12;
if (fp12 != null) {
//do something with the param.
break;
}
}
After writing the above I think I finally understand what you are trying to do. If you want to perform an operation that is available on FP12 on any subclass of FooParameter then you need to take that operation out of FooParameter altogether. Since your parameter is data and that data is the same across different subclasses of FooParameter, it makes sense to only have one implementation of FooParameter ("data" class) and multiple "operation" classes.
//The one implementation of IParameter for all FooParameters
public class FooParameter : IParameter {
string Data1 {get;set;}
}
//base class for Foo Operation, only stores FooParameter
public class FooOperationBase {
protected readonly FooParameter m_Param;
public FooOperationBase (FooParameter param) {
m_Param = param;
}
}
//specific operations on FooParameter go in this class
public class FooOperation12 : FooOperationBase {
public FooOperation12(FooParameter param) : base(param) {}
public void DoSomeOperation() {
return m_Param.Data1 + " transformed";
}
}

If paramList["FP12"] is a FP12, that cast will work. Of course, if it's not it will throw a InvalidCastException. You could also use as, if you're not sure what type the object will be.
Whether this is an ideal design is a separate issue. Ideally, you want to prefer polymorphism, meaning the subclass of FooParameter knows to use its new special functions internally, and the outside code doesn't have to cast, or use as or is.

I'm not 100% sure where you're coming from with this question, but you could do something like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var paramList = new List<IParameter>();
paramList.Add(new FooParameter());
paramList.Add(new BarParameter());
paramList.Add(new F1());
paramList.Add(new F2());
foreach (var p in paramList)
{
p.DoCommonOperation();
DoSpecificOperation(p);
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void DoSpecificOperation(IParameter p)
{
if (p is F1)
{
(p as F1).F1Method();
}
else if (p is F2)
{
(p as F2).F2Method();
}
}
interface IParameter
{
void DoCommonOperation();
}
abstract class ParamBase : IParameter
{
public virtual void DoCommonOperation()
{
Console.WriteLine("ParamBase");
}
}
class FooParameter : ParamBase
{
public override void DoCommonOperation()
{
Console.WriteLine("FooParameter");
}
}
class BarParameter : ParamBase
{
public override void DoCommonOperation()
{
Console.WriteLine("BarParameter");
}
}
class F1 : FooParameter
{
public override void DoCommonOperation()
{
Console.WriteLine("F1");
}
public void F1Method()
{
Console.WriteLine("F1.F1Method");
}
}
class F2 : FooParameter
{
public override void DoCommonOperation()
{
Console.WriteLine("F2");
}
public void F2Method()
{
Console.WriteLine("F2.F2Method");
}
}
}
Essentially you have a method in the class that controls the list of IParameter objects that knows how to call the specific implementations, and uses is/as to do so.

Just for sanity's sake, why not use Dictionary<Type, IParameter>? With a little generics, you could do this:
public interface IParameter { }
public class FP12 : IParameter { public string fieldFP12 { get; set; } }
public class FP11 : IParameter { public string fieldFP11 { get; set; } }
public static class DictionaryHelper
{
public static T GetParameter<T>(this Dictionary<System.Type,
IParameter> target) where T : IParameter
{
return (T)target[typeof(T)];
}
}
Sample program and output:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Dictionary<Type, IParameter> parameters =
new Dictionary<Type, IParameter>();
parameters.Add(typeof(FP12), new FP12 { fieldFP12 = "This is FP12" });
parameters.Add(typeof(FP11), new FP11 { fieldFP11 = "This is FP11"});
// THIS IS WHERE YOU GET THE IPARAMETER YOU WANT - THE GENERICS WAY...
var fp12 = parameters.GetParameter<FP12>();
var fp11 = parameters.GetParameter<FP11>();
Console.WriteLine(fp12.fieldFP12);
Console.WriteLine(fp11.fieldFP11);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
The resulting output:
This is FP12
This is FP11

Factory pattern in C#: How to ensure an object instance can only be created by a factory class?

Recently I've been thinking about securing some of my code. I'm curious how one could make sure an object can never be created directly, but only via some method of a factory class. Let us say I have some "business object" class and I want to make sure any instance of this class will have a valid internal state. In order to achieve this I will need to perform some check before creating an object, probably in its constructor. This is all okay until I decide I want to make this check be a part of the business logic. So, how can I arrange for a business object to be creatable only through some method in my business logic class but never directly? The first natural desire to use a good old "friend" keyword of C++ will fall short with C#. So we need other options...
Let's try some example:
public MyBusinessObjectClass
{
public string MyProperty { get; private set; }
public MyBusinessObjectClass (string myProperty)
{
MyProperty = myProperty;
}
}
public MyBusinessLogicClass
{
public MyBusinessObjectClass CreateBusinessObject (string myProperty)
{
// Perform some check on myProperty
if (true /* check is okay */)
return new MyBusinessObjectClass (myProperty);
return null;
}
}
It's all okay until you remember you can still create MyBusinessObjectClass instance directly, without checking the input. I would like to exclude that technical possibility altogether.
So, what does the community think about this?

You can make the constructor private, and the factory a nested type:
public class BusinessObject
{
private BusinessObject(string property)
{
}
public class Factory
{
public static BusinessObject CreateBusinessObject(string property)
{
return new BusinessObject(property);
}
}
}
This works because nested types have access to the private members of their enclosing types. I know it's a bit restrictive, but hopefully it'll help...

Looks like you just want to run some business logic before creating the object - so why dont you just create a static method inside the "BusinessClass" that does all the dirty "myProperty" checking work, and make the constructor private?
public BusinessClass
{
public string MyProperty { get; private set; }
private BusinessClass()
{
}
private BusinessClass(string myProperty)
{
MyProperty = myProperty;
}
public static BusinessClass CreateObject(string myProperty)
{
// Perform some check on myProperty
if (/* all ok */)
return new BusinessClass(myProperty);
return null;
}
}
Calling it would be pretty straightforward:
BusinessClass objBusiness = BusinessClass.CreateObject(someProperty);

Or, if you want to go really fancy, invert control: Have the class return the factory, and instrument the factory with a delegate that can create the class.
public class BusinessObject
{
public static BusinessObjectFactory GetFactory()
{
return new BusinessObjectFactory (p => new BusinessObject (p));
}
private BusinessObject(string property)
{
}
}
public class BusinessObjectFactory
{
private Func<string, BusinessObject> _ctorCaller;
public BusinessObjectFactory (Func<string, BusinessObject> ctorCaller)
{
_ctorCaller = ctorCaller;
}
public BusinessObject CreateBusinessObject(string myProperty)
{
if (...)
return _ctorCaller (myProperty);
else
return null;
}
}
:)

You could make the constructor on your MyBusinessObjectClass class internal, and move it and the factory into their own assembly. Now only the factory should be able to construct an instance of the class.

After so many years this got asked, and all the answers I see are unfortunately telling you how you should do your code instead of giving a straight answer. The actual answer you were looking for is having your classes with a private constructor but a public instantiator, meaning that you can only create new instances from other existing instances... that are only available in the factory:
The interface for your classes:
public interface FactoryObject
{
FactoryObject Instantiate();
}
Your class:
public class YourClass : FactoryObject
{
static YourClass()
{
Factory.RegisterType(new YourClass());
}
private YourClass() {}
FactoryObject FactoryObject.Instantiate()
{
return new YourClass();
}
}
And, finally, the factory:
public static class Factory
{
private static List<FactoryObject> knownObjects = new List<FactoryObject>();
public static void RegisterType(FactoryObject obj)
{
knownObjects.Add(obj);
}
public static T Instantiate<T>() where T : FactoryObject
{
var knownObject = knownObjects.Where(x => x.GetType() == typeof(T));
return (T)knownObject.Instantiate();
}
}
Then you can easily modify this code if you need extra parameters for the instantiation or to preprocess the instances you create. And this code will allow you to force the instantiation through the factory as the class constructor is private.

Apart from what Jon suggested, you could also either have the factory method (including the check) be a static method of BusinessObject in the first place. Then, have the constructor private, and everyone else will be forced to use the static method.
public class BusinessObject
{
public static Create (string myProperty)
{
if (...)
return new BusinessObject (myProperty);
else
return null;
}
}
But the real question is - why do you have this requirement? Is it acceptable to move the factory or the factory method into the class?

Yet another (lightweight) option is to make a static factory method in the BusinessObject class and keep the constructor private.
public class BusinessObject
{
public static BusinessObject NewBusinessObject(string property)
{
return new BusinessObject();
}
private BusinessObject()
{
}
}

So, it looks like what I want cannot be done in a "pure" way. It's always some kind of "call back" to the logic class.
Maybe I could do it in a simple way, just make a contructor method in the object class first call the logic class to check the input?
public MyBusinessObjectClass
{
public string MyProperty { get; private set; }
private MyBusinessObjectClass (string myProperty)
{
MyProperty = myProperty;
}
pubilc static MyBusinessObjectClass CreateInstance (string myProperty)
{
if (MyBusinessLogicClass.ValidateBusinessObject (myProperty)) return new MyBusinessObjectClass (myProperty);
return null;
}
}
public MyBusinessLogicClass
{
public static bool ValidateBusinessObject (string myProperty)
{
// Perform some check on myProperty
return CheckResult;
}
}
This way, the business object is not creatable directly and the public check method in business logic will do no harm either.

In a case of good separation between interfaces and implementations the
protected-constructor-public-initializer pattern allows a very neat solution.
Given a business object:
public interface IBusinessObject { }
class BusinessObject : IBusinessObject
{
public static IBusinessObject New()
{
return new BusinessObject();
}
protected BusinessObject()
{ ... }
}
and a business factory:
public interface IBusinessFactory { }
class BusinessFactory : IBusinessFactory
{
public static IBusinessFactory New()
{
return new BusinessFactory();
}
protected BusinessFactory()
{ ... }
}
the following change to BusinessObject.New() initializer gives the solution:
class BusinessObject : IBusinessObject
{
public static IBusinessObject New(BusinessFactory factory)
{ ... }
...
}
Here a reference to concrete business factory is needed to call the BusinessObject.New() initializer. But the only one who has the required reference is business factory itself.
We got what we wanted: the only one who can create BusinessObject is BusinessFactory.

public class HandlerFactory: Handler
{
public IHandler GetHandler()
{
return base.CreateMe();
}
}
public interface IHandler
{
void DoWork();
}
public class Handler : IHandler
{
public void DoWork()
{
Console.WriteLine("hander doing work");
}
protected IHandler CreateMe()
{
return new Handler();
}
protected Handler(){}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Handler handler = new Handler(); - this will error out!
var factory = new HandlerFactory();
var handler = factory.GetHandler();
handler.DoWork(); // this works!
}

I don't understand why you want to separate the "business logic" from the "business object". This sounds like a distortion of object orientation, and you'll end up tying yourself in knots by taking that approach.

I'd put the factory in the same assembly as the domain class, and mark the domain class's constructor internal. This way any class in your domain may be able to create an instance, but you trust yourself not to, right? Anyone writing code outside of the domain layer will have to use your factory.
public class Person
{
internal Person()
{
}
}
public class PersonFactory
{
public Person Create()
{
return new Person();
}
}
However, I must question your approach :-)
I think that if you want your Person class to be valid upon creation you must put the code in the constructor.
public class Person
{
public Person(string firstName, string lastName)
{
FirstName = firstName;
LastName = lastName;
Validate();
}
}

This solution is based off munificents idea of using a token in the constructor. Done in this answer make sure object only created by factory (C#)
public class BusinessObject
{
public BusinessObject(object instantiator)
{
if (instantiator.GetType() != typeof(Factory))
throw new ArgumentException("Instantiator class must be Factory");
}
}
public class Factory
{
public BusinessObject CreateBusinessObject()
{
return new BusinessObject(this);
}
}

Multiple approaches with different tradeoffs have been mentioned.
Nesting the factory class in the privately constructed class only allows the factory to construct 1 class. At that point you're better off with a Create method and a private ctor.
Using inheritance and a protected ctor has the same issue.
I'd like to propose the factory as a partial class that contains private nested classes with public constructors. You're 100% hiding the object your factory is constructing and only exposing what you choose to through one or multiple interfaces.
The use case I heard for this would be when you want to track 100% of instances in the factory. This design guarantees no one but the factory has access to creating instances of "chemicals" defined in the "factory" and it removes the need for a separate assembly to achieve that.
== ChemicalFactory.cs ==
partial class ChemicalFactory {
private ChemicalFactory() {}
public interface IChemical {
int AtomicNumber { get; }
}
public static IChemical CreateOxygen() {
return new Oxygen();
}
}
== Oxygen.cs ==
partial class ChemicalFactory {
private class Oxygen : IChemical {
public Oxygen() {
AtomicNumber = 8;
}
public int AtomicNumber { get; }
}
}
== Program.cs ==
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
var ox = ChemicalFactory.CreateOxygen();
Console.WriteLine(ox.AtomicNumber);
}
}

I don't think there is a solution that's not worse than the problem , all he above require a public static factory which IMHO is a worse problem and wont stop people just calling the factory to use your object - it doesnt hide anything . Best to expose an interface and/or keep the constructor as internal if you can that's the best protection since the assembly is trusted code.
One option is to have a static constructor which registers a factory somewhere with something like an IOC container.

Here is another solution in the vein of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" ...
It does meet the requirements of keeping the business object constructor private and putting the factory logic in another class. After that it gets a bit sketchy.
The factory class has a static method for creating business objects. It derives from the business object class in order to access a static protected construction method that invokes the private constructor.
The factory is abstract so you can't actually create an instance of it (because it would also be a business object, so that would be weird), and it has a private constructor so client code can't derive from it.
What's not prevented is client code also deriving from the business object class and calling the protected (but unvalidated) static construction method. Or worse, calling the protected default constructor we had to add to get the factory class to compile in the first place. (Which incidentally is likely to be a problem with any pattern that separates the factory class from the business object class.)
I'm not trying to suggest anyone in their right mind should do something like this, but it was an interesting exercise. FWIW, my preferred solution would be to use an internal constructor and the assembly boundary as the guard.
using System;
public class MyBusinessObjectClass
{
public string MyProperty { get; private set; }
private MyBusinessObjectClass(string myProperty)
{
MyProperty = myProperty;
}
// Need accesible default constructor, or else MyBusinessObjectFactory declaration will generate:
// error CS0122: 'MyBusinessObjectClass.MyBusinessObjectClass(string)' is inaccessible due to its protection level
protected MyBusinessObjectClass()
{
}
protected static MyBusinessObjectClass Construct(string myProperty)
{
return new MyBusinessObjectClass(myProperty);
}
}
public abstract class MyBusinessObjectFactory : MyBusinessObjectClass
{
public static MyBusinessObjectClass CreateBusinessObject(string myProperty)
{
// Perform some check on myProperty
if (true /* check is okay */)
return Construct(myProperty);
return null;
}
private MyBusinessObjectFactory()
{
}
}

Would appreciate hearing some thoughts on this solution.
The only one able to create 'MyClassPrivilegeKey' is the factory. and 'MyClass' requires it in the constructor.
Thus avoiding reflection on private contractors / "registration" to the factory.
public static class Runnable
{
public static void Run()
{
MyClass myClass = MyClassPrivilegeKey.MyClassFactory.GetInstance();
}
}
public abstract class MyClass
{
public MyClass(MyClassPrivilegeKey key) { }
}
public class MyClassA : MyClass
{
public MyClassA(MyClassPrivilegeKey key) : base(key) { }
}
public class MyClassB : MyClass
{
public MyClassB(MyClassPrivilegeKey key) : base(key) { }
}
public class MyClassPrivilegeKey
{
private MyClassPrivilegeKey()
{
}
public static class MyClassFactory
{
private static MyClassPrivilegeKey key = new MyClassPrivilegeKey();
public static MyClass GetInstance()
{
if (/* some things == */true)
{
return new MyClassA(key);
}
else
{
return new MyClassB(key);
}
}
}
}

Develop Reference

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

Instantiating a generic field of a class - c#

Related

Casting to a generic interface [duplicate]

Mapping classes c#

C# abstract generic method call

What OOP pattern to use when only adding new methods, not data?

Factory pattern in C#: How to ensure an object instance can only be created by a factory class?

Categories

Resources