I currently have a class which encapsulates a list of typed objects and implements some interfaces like IEnumerable. I need a second class with additional, slightly different properties. So I will be creating a base class A and derive new class B and new class C from A.
However I have code (e.g like code for .Find using Delegates) which is almost the same in B and C. The only difference is that the code in B searches the private list of typed objects (let's say Person) and the code in C searches a private list of different objects (let's say Animal):
private static bool Find(Person xx)
{
if (xx.Id == someID)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
As I want to avoid copying/pasting, my question is: What is a good strategy to avoid something like that?
The only way I imagined was to declare a list of generic objects in A and point the methods in A to that. In B and C I would then not have any code, however I lose all benefits of a typed list.
1) I would see if I could use generics when coding class A
public class cA<T>
{
private IEnumerable<T> _myPrivateData
public bool Find(args)
{
// Do stuff with _myPrivateData
}
}
public class cB : cA<TheTypeIWant>
{
// more stuff here if needed
}
2) You can use the property override feature + the use of the protected access modifier to do the following:
public class cA
{
protected IEnumerable<Object> MyData { get; set; }
public bool Find(args)
{
// Do stuff with MyData
}
}
public class cB : cA
{
protected new IEnumerable<MyOtherDataType> MyData { get; set; }
}
Of course MyOtherDataType has to inherit from the base type used for this approach to be possible. I would really not recommend this approach though. Option 1 is much better and cleaner.
Here's a few references that may prove to be useful:
http://peisker.net/dotnet/covariance.htm
C#: Overriding return types
I'd be tempted to have an interface like ICanBeFoundById
public interface ICanBeFoundById
{
int Id {get;}
}
then Person and Animal can both inherit from that and you can do something like
public static class FindExtensions
{
public static bool Find(this IEnumerable<ICanBeFoundById> xs, int someID)
{
return xs.Any(x=>x.Id == someID)
}
}
Warning: I haven't even checked if this compiles :)
Of course you could have some
public abstract class BaseRepository<ICanBeFoundById>
{
private IEnumerable<ICanBeFoundById> _xs;
public static bool Find(int someID)
{
return xs.Any(x=>x.Id == someID)
}
}
if you don't want to have a static extension.
Related
I'd like to have a List of Class Types (not a list of Class instances) where each member of the List is a Subclass of MyClass.
For example, i can do this:
List<System.Type> myList;
myList.Add(typeof(mySubClass));
but i'd like to restrict the list to only accept subclasses of MyClass.
This is distinct from questions like this.
Ideally i'd like to avoid linq, as it's currently unused in my project.
Servy is right in his comment, and Lee in his: it's much more preferable to compose than inherit. So this is a good option:
public class ListOfTypes<T>
{
private List<Type> _types = new List<Type>();
public void Add<U>() where U : T
{
_types.Add(typeof(U));
}
}
Usage:
var x = new ListOfTypes<SuperClass>();
x.Add<MySubClass>()
Note that you can make this class implement an interface like IReadOnlyList<Type> if you want to give other code read access to the contained Types without other code having to depend on this class.
But if you want to inherit anyway, you could create your own class that inherits from List, then add your own generic Add method like this:
public class ListOfTypes<T> : List<Type>
{
public void Add<U>() where U : T
{
Add(typeof(U));
}
}
Just be aware of what Lee said: with this second version you can still Add(typeof(Foo)).
You should derive a list class from List and override the Add method to perform the type checking that you need. I'm not aware of a way in .NET to do that automatically.
Something like this could work:
public class SubTypeList : List<System.Type>
{
public System.Type BaseType { get; set; }
public SubTypeList()
: this(typeof(System.Object))
{
}
public SubTypeList(System.Type baseType)
{
BaseType = BaseType;
}
public new void Add(System.Type item)
{
if (item.IsSubclassOf(BaseType) == true)
{
base.Add(item);
}
else
{
// handle error condition where it's not a subtype... perhaps throw an exception if
}
}
}
You would need to update the other methods that add/update items to the list (index setter, AddRange, Insert, etc)
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());
}
}
I tried to search for solutions, but my problem is I don't even know what terms to use. Generics, Delegates, LINQ, Reflection, and Abstract ideas could be part of the solution, but my "Google-fu" isn't turning up the right answer.
Question:
I have multiple classes (ClassA, ClassB, ClassC) that all have the same 2-3 properties DoThisA, DoThisB, DoThisC.
The way the code works is that I always want to do the same code to set DoThisA, DoThisB, and DoThisC when I process each of the classes.
For example, to simplify, the logic will always be:
{some computations to set string currentValueImProcessing to something}
if (xyz) [ClassA|B|C].DoThisA = currentValueImProcessing
else [ClassA|B|C].DoThisB = currentValueImProcessing
I don't want to write those same statements over and over, so how do I just send a reference to the class (A,B,C) to a method to do the logic?
If it was written correctly each of ClassA, ClassB, and ClassC would have implemented some generic class and I could use that, but I cannot. Each of the classes are independent but have the same named properties.
Any guidance on concepts/code?
Thanks!
Create an interface for your properties:
internal interface IDoThis
{
public string DoThisA { get; set; }
public string DoThisB { get; set; }
public string DoThisC { get; set; }
}
Then, make your classes implement it:
public class ClassA : IDoThis
{
public string DoThisA { get; set; }
public string DoThisB { get; set; }
public string DoThisC { get; set; }
}
public class ClassB : IDoThis
{
// Same properties
}
public class ClassC : IDoThis
{
// Same properties
}
This, way, you'll be able to create a static initializer method somewhere:
internal static class MyClassesExtensions
{
public static void InitTheStuff(this IDoThis obj)
{
// Do something here, for example:
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(obj.DoThisA))
obj.DoThisA = "foo";
else
obj.DoThisB = obj.DoThisC;
}
}
And then you can just call this.InitTheStuff() anywhere from ClassA, ClassB and ClassC.
you can either use reflection or you can use dynamic (dynamic will use reflection for you)
dynamic obj = new ClassA();
obj.DoTHisA();
is how to do it with dynamic
I am assuming that you are talking about classes that you intend to instantiate. If DoThisA,B,C are static methods then you must use reflection
NOTE - if you can change the classes then add an interface as others have suggested, or even a common base class
The reflection one looks like this
var type = obj.GetType(); // obj is ClassX object
var method = type.GetMethod("DoTHisA");
method.Invoke(obj);
I have not checked this - so the syntax might be a bit off - but this is the basic mechanics of reflection method calling. YOu need to get fancier if there are multiple methods with the same name, if the methods takses params etc
There are at least four options open to you - maybe more.
Create an interface, which is implemented by all of your classes and that includes the common methods.
Create a base class from which all classes inherit. The common functionality can then be implemented in the base class. If the implementation differs depending on the clases, but you can define common signatures for the methods, make your base class an the common funtionality abstract. You then can implement the actual functionality in each of your classes.
Use a dynamic object as in #pm100's solution.
Use reflection to access the common functionality.
As a guidance methods 1. and 2. are to be preferred, as they allow your code to be checked on compile time. If, however, you do not have control over the classes that contain the common functionality - for example you do not have access to the source code or you are permitted to make changes to the code - you can use the other two methods.
If you'd ask me which of the two I would prefer, I guess that I would go for 3. over 4. But this is personal preference.
Prob you are talking about inheritance.
For your task you need a base abstract class with general properties:
public abstract class Base
{
public bool DoThisA { get; set; }
public bool DoThisB { get; set; }
}
and child classes:
public class A : Base { }
public class B : Base { }
public class C : Base { }
After that you can create a method which will accept object of type Base
public void Do(Base b, bool xyz, bool currentValueImProcessing)
{
if (xyz)
{
b.DoThisA = currentValueImProcessing;
}
else
{
b.DoThisB = currentValueImProcessing;
}
}
There are already many methods provided here, so just for the sake of completeness... Here's some runtime code generation:
public class ClassA
{
public string DoThisA { get; set; }
public int DoThisB { get; set; }
public bool DoThisC { get; set; }
public void Init()
{
// You can call this from anywhere, even from an unrelated class
MyClassInitializer<ClassA>.Init(this);
}
}
public static class MyClassInitializer<T>
{
// Create the getters/setters you need, and make sure they're static.
private static readonly Func<T, string> _getA = BuildGetter<string>("DoThisA");
private static readonly Action<T, string> _setA = BuildSetter<string>("DoThisA");
private static readonly Func<T, int> _getB = BuildGetter<int>("DoThisB");
private static readonly Action<T, int> _setB = BuildSetter<int>("DoThisB");
private static readonly Func<T, bool> _getC = BuildGetter<bool>("DoThisC");
private static readonly Action<T, bool> _setC = BuildSetter<bool>("DoThisC");
private static Func<T, TValue> BuildGetter<TValue>(string name)
{
var obj = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
return Expression.Lambda<Func<T, TValue>>(Expression.Property(obj, name), obj).Compile();
}
private static Action<T, TValue> BuildSetter<TValue>(string name)
{
var obj = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
var value = Expression.Parameter(typeof(TValue));
return Expression.Lambda<Action<T, TValue>>(Expression.Assign(Expression.Property(obj, name), value), obj, value).Compile();
}
public static void Init(T obj)
{
// Here's your custom initialization method
if (_getA(obj) == "Foo")
_setB(obj, 42);
else
_setC(obj, true);
}
}
Not necessarily the easiest one to grasp, but this should be much faster than using dynamic or reflection. That said, if you don't need the speed, stick with dynamic as it's easier.
Even though all common sense says no, I still am asking this question just to get a second opinion and become sure.
If I have a class hierarchy like so:
public class IntermediateObjectContext : System.Data.Objects.ObjectContext
{
public static Action<string> PrintHello { get; set; }
}
public class MyDatabaseContext : IntermediateObjectContext
{
public ObjectSet<Foo> Foos
{
get { // ... }
}
}
Then from a third, unrelated to Entity Framework object, if I access the static member of the IntermediateObjectContext class, in this case, if I subscribe to the delegate of the class, will that somehow instantiate a new ObjectContext?
class SomeClass
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
IntermediateObjectContext.PrintHello += SayHello;
}
public void SayHello(string s)
{
Debug.Print(s);
}
}
All reason says no, common sense says it won't, but I just want to make sure. I am trying to track down a memory hogger object.
What happens if
What happens to the memory situation if I have a static collection for SomeClass types like so:
public class SomeClassCollection
{
private static Collection<SomeClass> _col =
new Collection<SomeClass>();
public void Add(SomeClass c) { _col.Add(c); }
public void Remove(SomeClass c) { _col.Remove(c); }
}
And then some code adds SomeClass instances to SomeClassCollection like so:
public SomeClassCollectionConfig
{
public static RegisterSomeClasses()
{
SomeClassCollection.Add(new SomeClass());
SomeClassCollection.Add(new DerivesClassOfSomeClass());
}
}
(1) No, it won't instantiate an object.
(2) What happens if:
There it will allocate the empty collection col the first time any member of SomeClassCollection is accessed.
From the code, that's all it will do. You aren't using _col anywhere in the code presented.
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