Is there an elegant (or any) way to achieve following in C#?
Let's have a class ItemBase (further derivable to Item1, Item2...), which does not allow direct instantiation (non-public construction) - to prevent user to create any 'untracked' instance of Item*.
Let's have a non-static class Manager, whose instances (multiple ones allowed) only can create and provide instances of Item* (because they keep track of produced instances and do some additional work).
Let's have an optional requirement: The Manager instances would like to manipulate non-public members of the managed Item instances (similar like the Manager would be a friend of Item*).
It would be nice if the Manager is not forced to be derivation of Item*.
It would be nice if there is as little reflection as possible.
Notes:
If possible, please consider this as a question raising from process of thinking how to implement particular problem solution in a best and elegant way. I would like it to be general and no, I don't have sources and yes, I have already tried some variants, but none of them satisfied my needs. Thank you.
As far as I know, there is no acceptable friend alternative (any of internal and InternalsVisibleToAttribute seems to be good), so the ItemBase just provides the 'special' (but public) modification methods and the user must be aware, these methods are not for him :o(
I like this solution, but I'm not able to invent, how to allow multiple Manager instances using it.
I think this might answer your problem :
public class ItemBase
{
protected ItemBase()
{
}
public void PublicMethod() { }
public int PublicProperty { get; set; }
}
public class Factory
{
private class PrivateItemBase : ItemBase
{
public void PrivateMethod() { }
public int PrivateProperty { get; set; }
}
public Factory(int id)
{
}
public IEnumerable<ItemBase> Items { get; private set; }
public ItemBase CreateItem()
{
PrivateItemBase rValue = new PrivateItemBase();
rValue.PrivateMethod();
rValue.PrivateProperty = 4;
return rValue;
}
}
Ok, giving up. If this might help to fully understand the purpose, there is the less bad solution I've (currently) ended up. Passing the creation functions is done via static constructors (which are not accessible by the users), unfortunately the ugly thing is their invocation...
Any idea how to make it better?
The item definitions:
namespace SpecialFactory
{
public enum ItemType
{
Item1,
Item2,
// ... Anyone deriving the Item* should add an item here
}
public abstract class ItemBase
{
public abstract ItemType Id {get;}
public static void RegisterAllCreators()
{
// Force static constructors invocation
var it = Item1.ClassId | Item2.ClassId; // Anyone deriving the Item* should ensure invocation of Manager.RegisterCreator
}
}
public class Item1 : ItemBase
{
static Item1()
{
Manager.RegisterCreator(ItemType.Item1, () => new Item1());
}
protected Item1()
{
}
public static ItemType ClassId => ItemType.Item1;
public override ItemType Id => ClassId;
}
public class Item2 : ItemBase
{
static Item2()
{
Manager.RegisterCreator(ItemType.Item2, () => new Item2());
}
protected Item2()
{
}
public static ItemType ClassId => ItemType.Item2;
public override ItemType Id => ClassId;
}
}
The manager:
namespace SpecialFactory
{
public class Manager
{
static Manager()
{
ItemBase.RegisterAllCreators();
}
protected static Dictionary<ItemType, Func<ItemBase>> creators = new Dictionary<ItemType, Func<ItemBase>>();
protected readonly List<ItemBase> managedItems = new List<ItemBase>();
protected ItemBase CreateItem(ItemType type)
{
ItemBase item = null;
if (creators.ContainsKey(type))
{
if ((item = creators[type]()) != null)
managedItems.Add(item);
}
return item;
}
public static void RegisterCreator(ItemType type, Func<ItemBase> creator)
{
if (!creators.ContainsKey(type))
creators[type] = creator;
}
public Manager()
{
}
public ItemBase Test(ItemType type)
{
// var notAllowed = new Item1();
var allowed = CreateItem(type);
return allowed;
}
}
}
The test:
namespace SpecialFactory
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var m1 = new Manager();
var m2 = new Manager();
var i1 = m1.Test(ItemType.Item1);
var i2 = m2.Test(ItemType.Item2);
}
}
}
Related
I have a basic architecture for 'orders' in my game - each order has a basic data type and an 'order processor' which performs some action based on the given data. For example 'move to this point.'
I'd like to have a tidy system where I can simply pass in order data and the correct order processor will kick in, in such a way that I can easily add new OrderData/OrderProcessor classes without modifying other classes or messing around with enums or casting, so it seems like generics are the way to go.
This is the current code I have. I'm drawing a blank for how to draw a connection in the 'OrderService' class between the correct 'OrderProcessor' and 'IOrderData' pairs. See inside the OrderService<T> class for more information:
public interface IOrderData
{
}
// an order processor reads data from an IOrderData object until the data object says stop
public abstract class OrderProcessor<T> where T : IOrderData
{
protected T m_currentData;
public virtual void Start(T data)
{
m_currentData = data;
}
}
////////////////////////
public class MoveOrderData : IOrderData
{
public Vector3 Destination { get; private set; }
}
public class MoveOrderProcessor : OrderProcessor<MoveOrderData>
{
public override void Start(MoveOrderData data)
{
base.Start(data);
}
}
////////////////////////
public class OrderService<T> where T : IOrderData
{
private Dictionary<System.Type, OrderProcessor<T>> m_processors = new Dictionary<System.Type, OrderProcessor<T>>();
private OrderProcessor<T> m_currentProcessor;
public void GiveOrder(IOrderData data)
{
// this is the main problem: I'm not sure how to say "the given data is type 'MoveOrderData' so find out which
// OrderProcessor class handles those and pass it in". A simple switch statement and cast would suffice here
// but I'd like to automate the process
}
}
A possible solution here can be a making an OrderService class non-generic, because it can handle a different types of orders/order processors (according to comments). Then maintain a Dictionary<Type, Action<object>>, which wraps Action<object> to call Start method from OrderProcessor<T>.
I've extended the original code a little bit to show how it can work
public interface IOrderData
{
}
public class MoveOrderData : IOrderData
{
public Vector3 Destination { get; private set; }
}
public class AttackOrderData : IOrderData
{
}
public abstract class OrderProcessor<T> where T : IOrderData
{
protected T CurrentData { get; set; }
public virtual void Start(T data)
{
CurrentData = data;
}
}
public class MoveOrderProcessor : OrderProcessor<MoveOrderData>
{
}
public class AttackOrderProcessor : OrderProcessor<AttackOrderData>
{
}
public class OrderService
{
private readonly Dictionary<Type, Action<object>> m_processors = new Dictionary<Type, Action<object>>();
public OrderService()
{
AddProcessor(new MoveOrderProcessor());
AddProcessor(new AttackOrderProcessor());
}
private void AddProcessor<T>(OrderProcessor<T> processor) where T : IOrderData
{
var action = (Action<T>)processor.Start;
m_processors.Add(typeof(T), obj => action((T)obj));
}
public void GiveOrder(IOrderData data)
{
var action = m_processors[data.GetType()];
action?.Invoke(data);
}
}
It causes a downcasting obj => action((T)obj), but it shouldn't be a problem, since your data is constrained to IOrderData interface. Example of the usage
var service = new OrderService();
service.GiveOrder(new MoveOrderData());
service.GiveOrder(new AttackOrderData());
I'm sorry if this is poorly worded or if this has been asked before but I couldn't seem to find anything related to this and I'm quite tired.
Alright, so what I'm trying to do is get the value of of my trait in a subclass for situations where I need to reference an instance of a subclass but I don't have the information about what trait it will be using. This is easier for me to explain in code so here's what I'm trying to do.
public class TraitUser<T>
{
public void DoThingWithT(T thing)
{
thing.ToString();
}
}
public class TraitInspector
{
public void DoThing()
{
// This is where I run into my issue,
// I need to be able to get the trait that
// an instance of the TraitUser class is using to continue.
TraitUser<> tUser = GetRandomTraitUser()/*Imagine this returns an instance of TraitUser with a random trait, this is where my issue comes in.*/;
}
}
If I understand youright, you need get information about generic type T in TraitUser instance in TrairInspector.
public interface IGetTraitInfo
{
Type GetTraitObjectType();
object GetTraitObject();
}
public class TraitUser<T> : IGetTraitInfo
{
private T _thing;
public void DoThingWithT(T thing)
{
_thing = thing;
}
public Type GetTraintObjectType()
{
return typeof(T);
}
public Type GetTraitObject()
{
return _thing;
}
}
public class TrairInspector
{
public void InspectTraitUser(IGetTraitInfo traitUser)
{
Type traitType = traitUser.GetTraintObjectType();
object data = traitUser.GetTraitObject();
}
}
I didn't understand completely but this might help you.
public interface ITrait
{
string DoSomething();
}
public class Trait<T> where T : ITrait, new()
{
public string DoSomething()
{
ITrait trait = new T();
return trait.DoSomething();
}
}
public class TraitUser : ITrait
{
public string DoThing()
{
return "return something";
}
}
public class TrairInspector
{
public void DoThing()
{
Trait<TraitUser> traitUser = new Trait<TraitUser>();
traitUser.DoSomething();
}
}
I am quite new to the C# world and I apologize if the Question title not exactly match the content. But now to my Problem:
I have the following construct:
public interface IClass<TEnum>
{
Dictionary<TEnum, ISecondClass> dictionary { get; }
}
public abstract class ClassBase<TEnum> : IClass<TEnum>
{
public abstract Dictionary<TEnum, ISecondClass> dictionary { get; protected set; }
}
public class ConcreteClass : ClassBase<ConcreteClass.Concrete>
{
public override Dictionary<Concrete, ISecondClass> dictionary { get; protected set; }
public enum Concrete : ulong
{
}
}
public class OtherClass : ClassBase<OtherClass.Other>
{
public override Dictionary<Concrete, ISecondClass> dictionary { get; protected set; }
public enum Other : ulong
{
}
}
My goal is to instantiate all existing concrete classes based on it's enums, store all instances in a dictionary and later invoke some methods on each object.
I am not sure if this is even possible?
I am glad for any hint on this!
If I understand what you're trying to do, it sounds like a version of the Multiton Pattern. You may find it useful to research that.
From Wikipedia's example Multiton code:
class FooMultiton
{
private static readonly Dictionary<object, FooMultiton> _instances = new Dictionary<object, FooMultiton>();
private FooMultiton() {}
public static FooMultiton GetInstance(object key)
{
lock (_instances)
{
FooMultiton instance;
if (!_instances.TryGetValue(key, out instance))
{
instance = new FooMultiton();
_instances.Add(key, instance);
}
}
return instance;
}
}
This isn't directly pasteable into your class, but since you're looking for hints, I think it should point you in the right direction.
One word of caution about the above code: The method GetInstance will alter the dictionary if key isn't found. Personally, I associate the "Get" prefix with read-only methods. I'd either rename GetInstance or split it into two methods.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "instantiate all existing concrete classes based on it's enums", though. Can you clarify that?
Use Activator.CreateInstance() to create concrete classes' objects and store them into dictionary.
Pass your string classname from Enum and create dynamic class objects. Store them into Dictionary<Enum, ISecondClass>
myObject = (MyAbstractClass)Activator.CreateInstance("AssemblyName", "TypeName");
or
var type = Type.GetType("MyFullyQualifiedTypeName");
var myObject = (MyAbstractClass)Activator.CreateInstance(type);
While retrieving, based on your enum key, you know what type of instance value represents.
I don't understand a goal of the sample code, but you can write some thing like this:
public interface IClass
{
void MethodToDynamicInvoke();
}
public abstract class ClassBase<T>
: IClass
{
private Dictionary<Type, List<IClass>> instances = new Dictionary<Type, List<IClass>>();
public ClassBase()
{
List<IClass> list;
if (!instances.TryGetValue(typeof(T), out list))
{
list = new List<IClass>();
instances.Add(typeof(T), list);
}
list.Add(this);
}
public abstract void MethodToDynamicInvoke();
public void InvokeMetodOnClassesWithSameEnum()
{
List<IClass> list;
if (instances.TryGetValue(EnumType, out list))
{
foreach (var instance in list)
{
instance.MethodToDynamicInvoke();
}
}
}
}
public class ConcreteClass
: ClassBase<ConcreteClass.Concrete>
{
public ConcreteClass()
: base()
{
}
public override void MethodToDynamicInvoke()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public enum Concrete : ulong
{
}
}
public class OtherClass : ClassBase<OtherClass.Other>
{
public OtherClass()
: base()
{
}
public override void MethodToDynamicInvoke()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public enum Other : ulong
{
}
}
Is it possible to do something like the following:
public class ChildClass : BaseClass
{
public ChildClass(BaseClass o)
{
base = o;
}
}
Basically, I want a transparent way to wrap a base class inside of other functionality. One example I've thought of is a custom Settings Provider which transparently audits the settings passed through it.
public class SettingsAuditor : SettingsProvider
{
public SettingsAuditor(SettingsProvider o)
{
base = o;
}
public override void SetPropertyValues(SettingsContext context, SettingsPropertyValueCollection propvals)
{
// Log the property change to a file
base.SetPropertyValues(context, propvals);
}
}
Then I could do the following:
mySettingsProvider = new SettingsAuditor(mySettingsProvider);
And all changes would go through the overridden SetPropertyValues before passing to the original object.
I could use a private SettingsProvider member, but then I either cannot inherit from SettingsProvider, or have an entire SettingsProvider (base) not being used at all.
I'm using C# 4.0 and .Net 4.0.
You cannot do base = o;
What you're looking for is the Decorator Pattern), which is a way to compositionally add functionality at runtime (vs. inheritance).
Instead of trying to set the base, you just contain the inner member. As long as the wrapper implements the same interface or base class as the inner object, you can pass back the new wrapper. You can wrap as many decorators as you want.
Consider:
public interface ICar
{
void Drive();
}
public class Car : ICar
{
public void Drive()
{
Console.WriteLine("vroom");
}
}
public class BuckleUp : ICar
{
ICar car;
public BuckleUp(ICar car) { this.car = car; }
public void Drive()
{
Console.WriteLine("click!");
car.Drive();
}
}
public class CheckMirrors : ICar
{
ICar car;
public CheckMirrors(ICar car) { this.car = car; }
public void Drive()
{
Console.WriteLine("mirrors adjusted");
car.Drive();
}
}
Now consider you have a method that accepts an ICar and tells it to drive. You could give it a Car, and it would work, but you could also wrap that car in a BuckleUp and a CheckMirrors and you wouldn't have to change that method at all. You've modified functionality through composition using the Decorator Pattern.
No. This looks like it should be a Composition vs Inheritance issue. You need to evaluate whether you are a "is a" or a "has a."
A little help for your journey
This is not a complete implmentation and it could probably be done much cleaner with expression trees... but this was a quick swing at faking AOP using DynamicObject with .Net 4.0.
public class MyDynamicWrapper<T> : DynamicObject
{
public T Wrapped { get; private set; }
public Action<T> Pre { get; private set; }
public Action<T> Post { get; private set; }
public MyDynamicWrapper(T wrapped, Action<T> pre, Action<T> post)
{
this.Wrapped = wrapped;
this.Pre = pre;
this.Post = post;
}
public override bool TryGetMember(
GetMemberBinder binder,
out object result)
{
var type = typeof(T);
var method = type.GetMethod(binder.Name);
if (method != null)
{
Func<object> func = () =>
{
if (Pre != null)
Pre(Wrapped);
// support for input parameters could be added here
var ret = method.Invoke(Wrapped, null);
if (Post != null)
Post(Wrapped);
return ret;
};
result = func;
return true;
}
return base.TryGetMember(binder, out result);
}
}
public class MyDynamicWrapper
{
public static MyDynamicWrapper<T> Create<T>(
T toWrap,
Action<T> pre = null,
Action<T> post = null)
{
return new MyDynamicWrapper<T>(toWrap, pre, post);
}
}
public class MyObject
{
public void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("Do Something");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var myobject = new MyObject();
dynamic mydyn = MyDynamicWrapper.Create(
myobject,
p => Console.WriteLine("before"),
p => Console.WriteLine("after"));
// Note that you have no intellisence...
// but you could use the old implmentation before you
// changed to this wrapped version.
mydyn.MyMethod();
/* output below
before
Do Something
after
*/
}
}
No, but you could fake it:
public class SettingsAuditor
{
SettingsProvider #base;
public SettingsAuditor(SettingsProvider o)
{
#base = o;
}
public void SetPropertyValues(SettingsContext context, SettingsPropertyValueCollection propvals)
{
// Log the property change to a file
#base.SetPropertyValues(context, propvals);
}
}
Note here, #base isn't the actual base, just a varaible named base
Is there any issues in using version 2,to get the same results as version 1.
Or is this just bad coding.
Any Ideas
public class Customer
{
public int CustomerID { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
int Age { get; set; }
}
public interface ICustomer
{
void AddNewCustomer(Customer Customer);
void AddNewCustomer(string EmailAddress, int Age);
void RemoveCustomer(Customer Customer);
}
public class BALCustomer
{
private readonly ICustomer dalCustomer;
public BALCustomer(ICustomer dalCustomer)
{
this.dalCustomer = dalCustomer;
}
public void Add_A_New_Customer(Customer Customer)
{
dalCustomer.AddNewCustomer(Customer);
}
public void Remove_A_Existing_Customer(Customer Customer)
{
dalCustomer.RemoveCustomer(Customer);
}
}
public class CustomerDataAccess : ICustomer
{
public void AddNewCustomer(Customer Customer)
{
// MAKE DB CONNECTION AND EXECUTE
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void AddNewCustomer(string EmailAddress, int Age)
{
// MAKE DB CONNECTION AND EXECUTE
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void RemoveCustomer(Customer Customer)
{
// MAKE DB CONNECTION AND EXECUTE
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
// VERSION 2
public class Customer_New : DataRespository<CustomerDataAccess>
{
public int CustomerID { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
public class DataRespository<T>
where T:class,new()
{
private T item = new T();
public T Execute { get { return item; } set { item = value; } }
public void Update()
{
//TO BE CODED
}
public void Save()
{
//TO BE CODED
}
public void Remove()
{
//TO BE CODED
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Customer_New cus = new Customer_New()
{
Age = 10,
EmailAddress = "this#demo.com"
};
cus.Save();
cus.Execute.RemoveCustomer(new Customer());
// Repository Version
Customer customer = new Customer()
{
EmailAddress = "new#demo.com",
CustomerID = 10
};
BALCustomer bal = new BALCustomer(new CustomerDataAccess());
bal.Add_A_New_Customer(customer);
}
}
You have a lot of things going on that aren't making a lot of sense.
First of all, the names of properties should always be a noun (singular or plural) or a "being" verb like Is* or Has*. These are properties of an object, and should be similar to what you would say in response to a question like "Would you please describe your desk?" Execute is an operation, and should therefore be a method. Likewise, your naming conventions in Version 1 should be PascalCased which means no underscores and the first letter of all words should be capitalized. These aren't die-hard truths, but they are considered OOP common C# coding standards.
Secondly, the code in your main method isn't actually implementing anything in your generic class. The only thing your class is actually doing is creating an instance of CustomerDataAccess. The Save() method won't do anything, unless you specifically are able to call item.Save() In order to use your Save, Update, Delete functionality on your generic class, your CustomerDataAccess class will have to implement an interface expected by your generic class. For instance:
public interface IDataAccess<T> : where T : YourBaseObject {
public void Update(T item);
public void Save(T item);
public void Remove(T item);
}
public class Customer : YourBaseObject {
public int CustomerID { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
public class CustomerDataAccess :
DataRespository<IDataAccess<Customer>> {
public void PerformCustomerOnlyAction(Customer customer) {
/* do stuff */
}
}
Now, you can create a generic class that handles basic CRUD functionality, and all other functionality is accessible through the BaseRepository property.
/* e.g. T = IDataAccess<Customer>, K = Customer */
public class DataRespository<T>
where T : IDataAccess<K>, new()
where K : YourBaseObject, new()
{
private T _base;
public T BaseRepository {
get {
if(_base == null)
_base = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
return _base;
}
}
public void Update(K item) { /* functionality for YourBaseObject */ }
public void Save(K item) { /* functionality for YourBaseObject */ }
public void Remove(K item) { /* functionality for YourBaseObject */ }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var repository = new CustomerDataAccess();
Customer c = new Customer {
Age = 10,
EmailAddress = "this#demo.com"
};
repository.Save(c);
// This pass-through is no longer needed, but shown as example
// repository.BaseRepository.PerformCustomerOnlyAction(c);
repository.PerformCustomerOnlyAction(c);
}
}
NOTE I did the above code from scratch/memory. The generic type constraints may not work exactly as I have them.
ASP.NET 3.5 Unleashed by Stephen Walther has a couple of chapters on creating a repository pattern which is setup similarly to what you're trying to accomplish in Version 2. He also splits processing up between a business logic layer and a data access layer. Although the book is huge (nearly 2000 pages) and many of the code examples are redundant or better left as part of the CD, he goes pretty in-depth for beginner-to-intermediate range. It's available used on Amazon for around $25.
I think while implementing object model of your application you just have to ask yourself a number of questions as though you are make object design review of your collegue code.
Why CustomerAccessLayer implements interface? Is there will be a number of layers implementing this Interface. Or maybe you are expecting any polymorph behaviour from classes implements this interface? Or maybe you will separate interface to standalone module and will provide its functionality though any kind of service?
Why do you need BALCustomer class? Why you could not make calls directly to CustomerAccesLayer? And, have i already spoke about codesyle? :)
If DataRepository have a generic behaviour and will provide a number of AccessLayers throw Execute property why it is have its own methods?
I think could be continued... I hope you've catch my point?