What I am trying to do is find the most elegant way to create a "pointer-like" class for a specific object/class type that I have in a project.
What I mean is a little confusing without an example. Take this really simple class:
public class MyClass
{
private string _name;
public string GetName() { return _name; }
public void SetName(string name) { _name = name; }
}
I want to create a second class which is like a pointer to it like this:
public class MyClassPtr
{
private MyClass _obj;
public bool IsValid = false;
public MyClassPtr(MyClass obj) { _obj = obj; IsValid = true; }
public void InvalidatePtr()
{
IsValid = false;
obj = null;
}
// SOME MAGIC HERE?
}
The challenge: The key is that I want to elegantly have MyClassPtr provide an interface to all of the public methods/members in MyClass without writing wrappers and/or accessors around each method/member.
I know that I could do this:
public class MyClassPtr
{
public string GetName() { return _obj.GetName(); }
...
}
But that's what I want to avoid. Is there some fundamental abstraction that I don't know of that I can apply to MyClassPtr to allow it to easily re-expose the methods/members in MyClass directed through _obj? I do NOT want MyClassPtr to inherit MyClass. Should MyClassPtr be a type instead, and some trick with accessors to expose the methods/members of MyClass?
Edit: More context on why I am looking for such a design through an example. Here is the overall goal. Imagine a platform that parses through data about people and when it finds information about a person, it creates an instance of Person with that information. You could get a handle to that person like:
Person person1 = platform.GetPerson(based_on_data);
Now, imagine the platform had two instances of Person that it thought were different people, but all of a sudden information came in that strongly suggested those two instances actually refer to the same person. So, the platform wants to merge the instances together in to a new object, let's call it personX.
Now, floating around in the platform someone had a copy of one of those two instances that got merged, which was person1. What I want to do is on-the-fly replace person1 with personX. Literally, I want person1==personX to be true, NOT just that they are two different objects with the same data. This is important since the platform could make a change to personX and unless the two objects are literally equal, a change to personX would not be automatically reflected in person1.
Since I can't on-the-fly replace person1 with personX I had that idea that I wouldn't give direct access to Person, instead I would give access to PersonPtr which the platform (on-the-fly) can change what Person it is pointing to. This would insurance that once person1ptr gets updated to point to personX, if a change is made in personX it will be seen in person1ptr
You could of course use something like
public class MyClassWrapper
{
MyClass _obj;
public MyClassWrapper(MyClass obj)
{
_obj = obj;
}
public void Invoke(Action<MyClass> action)
{
action(_obj);
}
public U Invoke<U>(Func<MyClass, U> func)
{
return func(_obj);
}
public void ChangeTo(MyClass obj)
{
_obj = obj;
}
}
Given your class looks like
public class MyClass
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Example:
var person1 = new MyClass { Name = "Instance1" };
var person2 = new MyClass { Name = "Instance2" };
var wrapper = new MyClassWrapper(person1);
wrapper.Invoke(x => x.Name += "original");
var x = wrapper.Invoke(x => x.Name); // Instance1original
wrapper.ChangeTo(person2);
var y = wrapper.Invoke(x => x.Name); // Instance2
but it has a major drawback: you can't access members directly, so you can't bind the data (to a DataTable or a Control).
It would be better to implement all members of your class also in your wrapper class. If you're afraid changes in your class will be forgotten to be implemented in your wrapper, just use an interface:
public interface IMyClass
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
public class MyClass : IMyClass
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class MyClassWrapper: IMyClass
{
MyClass _obj;
public MyClassWrapper(MyClass obj)
{
_obj = obj;
}
public string Name
{
get { return _obj.Name; }
set { _obj.Name = value; }
}
}
Note that regardless which approach you use, you'll have to always keep a reference to the wrapper instance to actually change the underlying instance (using something like static aside).
Also, changing the underlying instance of such a wrapper without telling the component using it that it changed don't seem to be a good idea. Maybe your system is simple enough to get away with a wrapper; that's something you have to decide for yourself.
Maybe your wrapper should simply have an Invalid flag (and/or use an event to signal a change of the underlying object.). Once the underlying object is merged, it is set to true and each member access should throw an exception. This would force the component using the wrapper to deliberately react to changes and to reload the data from your service.
All in all, I think using such a wrapper will just clutter up your code and be error prone (just imagine adding multithreading to the mix). Think twice if you really need this wrapper.
Why not just simply ask your service for a new instance of your class everytime you use it (the service can simply use a cache)? Sure, you can't prevent that someone somewhere keeps a reference; but at least you'll keep your sanity.
Related
I've been working on a Discord bot and one of my abstract classes that represents servers ("Bot Contexts") contains the following data.
public virtual Command[] ContextSpecificCommands { get; } = null;
In user-defined Contexts I expect them to override this (if the server that has this code needs to). There's an issue, however, which is that I expect Commands to be singletons in the scope of a Context. This means that CommandFoo can exist only once in CoolContextNumberOne, and can also exist in CoolContextNumberTwo (as a separate instance of CommandFoo), but a single context cannot have two instances of CommandFoo in it.
My issue comes in with the behavior of getters. If the user does this...
public override Command[] ContextSpecificCommands => new Command[] {
new CommandFoo()
};
Then this will instantiate CommandFoo every time ContextSpecificCommands is referenced.
Is there any way to ensure that ContextSpecificCommands is cached in-line so that it only instantiates that container array once? I'd like to avoid requiring the user to specify a field and point to that field if possible.
This code was for the intellectual exercise, it is not recommended!
If you are willing to force the implementors of your BotContexts to use a specific form, then you can insert a type of singleton pattern into the property definition.
Consider:
public static class Singleton {
public static T For<T>(Func<T> makeSingleton) => Singleton<T>.For(makeSingleton);
}
public static class Singleton<T> {
static Dictionary<Func<T>, T> Cache = new Dictionary<Func<T>, T>();
public static T For(Func<T> makeSingleton) {
T singleton;
if (!Cache.TryGetValue(makeSingleton, out singleton)) {
singleton = makeSingleton();
Cache[makeSingleton] = singleton;
}
return singleton;
}
}
Now you can use this like so:
public class CoolContextNumberOne : BotContexts {
public override Command[] ContextSpecificCommands => Singleton.For(() => new Command[] { new CommandFoo() });
}
public class CoolContextNumberTwo : BotContexts {
public override Command[] ContextSpecificCommands => Singleton.For(() => new Command[] { new CommandFoo() });
}
Each CoolContext will create one instance of CommandFoo regardless of how many times ContextSpecificCommands is called.
Since in C# the use of a new expression will always generate a new object, it is difficult (impossible?) to see how you could have the code the same and figure out when to generate a new object and when to return an existing object (e.g. if a Command was actually a proxy object). If you didn't mind a dependency on optimization being enabled, StackFrame and GetILOffset could help, but would probably fail in debug mode. And be very brittle.
It may be possible to hide the use of Singleton in the types of Commands by using dynamic and Expando but that seems like an even worse idea.
This is not natively possible without adding extra code.
In order for a result to cache, a separate backing field must be created and the code must be set up to work with this field.
In order to resolve my dilemma, I have altered my code from:
// User will override this.
public virtual Command[] ContextSpecificCommands { get; } = null;
To:
// User will override this.
protected virtual Command[] ContextSpecificCommands { get; } = null;
// These control the cache.
private bool HasPopulatedCommandCache = false;
private Command[] CommandCache = null;
// Things will reference this to get ahold of commands.
public Command[] Commands {
get {
if (!HasPopulatedCommandCache) {
HasPopulatedCommandCache = true;
CommandCache = ContextSpecificCommands;
}
return CommandCache;
}
}
This allows the code to meet all of the goals specified in my original question. The user's class can use an in-line expression to define their commands without the worry of this array being instantiated every time it is referenced.
Not sure I'm able to formulate this question in a way someone would simply understand, so lets have a cool marketing example:
public class Part
{
public MemberType member;
...
}
public class Product
{
public Part part1;
...
}
...
Product product = new Product();
I need to modify the public product's part1. So, the natural method is to write something like:
product.part1 = new Part();
Now, an algorithm (let's say a sort of search one) would go through the product object and identify the part1 as an interesting part and returns reference to it:
Part Search(Product product)
{
Part part = null;
...
part = product.part1;
...
return part;
}
...
interesting_part = Search(product);
We can alter the product object via the interesting_part like
interesting_part.member = whatever;
Now, the question: in c/c++ if the Product.part1 is pointer to Part and Search returns address of this pointer, we could replace the part1 just by assigning new value to this address. AFAIK this is not possible for c# reference:
interesting_part = new Part();
Just creates new object and copies its reference to the interresting_part, but without knowing the member parent (product object), we are not able to modify the (product.part1) reference, just its content. We would need second level of the reference.
Is there something like "ref reference" type which would accept reference addresses? In such hypothetical case the search would return ref Part and assigning to such value would replace the referenced object with the new one.
Thanks.
You could create a Reference class
class Reference<T>
{
private Func<T> m_Getter;
private Action<T> m_Setter;
public Reference(Func<T> getter, Action<T> setter)
{
m_Getter = getter;
m_Setter = setter;
}
public T Value
{
get{return m_Getter();}
set{m_Setter(value);}
}
}
Now you can say
Reference<Part> Search(Product product)
{
Part part = null;
...
part = product.part1;
var reference=new Reference<Part>(()=>product.part, (value)=>product.part1=value);
return refernce;
}
var partReference = Search(product);
partReference.Value = someNewPart;
In a very similar situation, I keep a reference of the parent in each child object. Simple and works.
public class Part
{
public MemberType member;
...
public Product parent;
Part(Product p)
{
parent = p;
}
}
public class Product
{
public Part part1;
...
}
I don't think you can do that. You would need to mutate a reference to you product object, or have some other added layer of reference.
So you need to build a Proxy object. The Product would get a reference to the Proxy and the (hidden) Part can be exchanged. This is a common OO design pattern. Of course the Proxy can delegate method calls to the Part.
If you want to change the field, you can do this,
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var holder = new Holder();
holder.CurrentPart = new Part() { Name = "Inital Part" };
Console.WriteLine(holder.CurrentPart.Name);
TestRef(ref holder.CurrentPart);
Console.WriteLine(holder.CurrentPart.Name);
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static void TestRef(ref Part part)
{
part = new Part() { Name = "changed" };
}
}
public class Part
{
public string Name;
}
public class Holder
{
public Part CurrentPart;
}
This won't work with property, indexers and so.
As far as I know, there isn't any way to alter an object's "parent" without having a reference to it. So I believe the official answer to your question as written is "no".
That said, there are many ways to accomplish the task as written. The easiest option is to add a reference to the parent from the part object. You end up with something like:
public class Part
{
public Product parentProduct;
public MemberType member;
...
}
Now whenever you have a part object you also know what product the part goes with (IF it does indeed go with a part at all). This is not necessarily a bad coding style but there certainly are pitfalls. You can update the product, but forget to update the parts in that product, you are coding so that parts have one product, but what if that part has many products? You can see how this works, but it can get complicated.
Taking this and making it more generic you can have reference the parent as an object type. That looks like:
public class Part
{
public object parent;
public MemberType member;
...
}
Now when you want to use the parent you can write something like:
var parentProduct = myPart.parent as Product;
This will convert the parent to a product or will assign null if the parent is not of the type Product. Now parts can have parents of any given type you would want and you have made the pattern more flexible.
One final pattern I know people use frequently is delegates. This allows you to pass in a function effectively modifying the way "search" is working. Say what you really want to do is search, then process the results in some manner, but you want that processing to be flexible (this may be what you were doing with the results). In that case, you can use delegates as follows:
// define the delegate
public delegate void ProcessResultDelegate(Product result, Part interestingPart);
// an example search function
public static void RunSearch(IEnumerable<Product> products, ProcessResultDelegate processingHelper)
{
// run the search... then call the processing function
processingHelper(searchResult, interestingPart);
}
This pattern is more useful when you want to modify the behavior of a routine rather than the return value from that routine.
Anyways, hope these patterns help some!
I have just recently got involved in a classic ASP.NET project which contains lots of storing and reading values from the session and query strings. This could look something like the following:
Session["someKey"]=someValue;
And somewhere else in the code the value in the session is read. Clearly this violates the DRY principle since you'll have the literal string key spread out all over the code. One way to avoid this could be to store all keys as constants that could be referenced everywhere there is a need to read and write to the session. But I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. How would you recommend I best handle this so that I don't violate the DRY principle?
Create a separate public class where you can define your constants, e.g
public class SessionVars
{
public const string SOME_KEY = "someKey";
public const string SOME_OTHER_KEY = "someOtherKey";
}
and then anywhere in your code you can access session variables like this:
Session[SessionVars.SOME_KEY]=someValue;
This way you can get IntelliSence and other bells and whistles.
I think you're reading too much into DRY. I pertains more to things that could be wrapped up in a function. I.e. instead of repeating the same fives lines all over the place wrap those 5 lines in a function and call the function everywhere you need it.
What you have as an example is just setting a value in a dictionary (the session object in this case), and that is the simplest way to store and retrieve objects in it.
I can't remember for the life of me where I humbly re-purposed this code from, but it's pretty nice:
using System;
using System.Web;
namespace Project.Web.UI.Domain
{
public abstract class SessionBase<T> where T : class, new()
{
private static readonly Object _padlock = new Object();
private static string Key
{
get { return typeof(SessionBase<T>).FullName; }
}
public static T Current
{
get
{
var instance = HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] as T;
lock (SessionBase<T>._padlock)
{
if (instance == null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[Key]
= instance
= new T();
}
}
return instance;
}
}
public static void Clear()
{
var instance = HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] as T;
if (instance != null)
{
lock (SessionBase<T>._padlock)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] = null;
}
}
}
}
}
The idea behind it two fold. The type created should be the only type you need. It's basically a big strongly-typed wrapper. So you have some object you want to keep extending information in:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
public string Blah1 { get; set; }
}
Then down the road you extend MyClass and you don't want to have to remember all the Key Values, store them in AppSettings or Const variables in Static Classes. You simply define what you want to store:
public class MyClassSession : SessionBase<MyClass>
{
}
And anywhere in your program you simply use the class.
// Any Asp.Net method (webforms or mvc)
public void SetValueMethod()
{
MyClassSesssion.Current.Blah1 = "asdf";
}
public string GetValueMethod()
{
return MyClassSession.Current.Blah1;
}
Optionally you could place the access to this session object in a base page and wrap it in a property:
class BasePage : Page
{
...
public string MySessionObject
{
get
{
if(Session["myKey"] == null)
return string.Empty;
return Session["myKey"].ToString();
}
set
{
Session["myKey"] = value;
}
}
...
}
Here you are repeating the myKey string but it is encapsulated into the property. If you want to go to the extreme of avoiding this, create a constant with the key and replace the string.
Is it possible to get value without creating an instance ?
I have this class:
public class MyClass
{
public string Name{ get{ return "David"; } }
public MyClass()
{
}
}
Now I need get the value "David", without creating instance of MyClass.
Real answer: no. It's an instance property, so you can only call it on an instance. You should either create an instance, or make the property static as shown in other answers.
See MSDN for more information about the difference between static and instance members.
Tongue-in-cheek but still correct answer:
Is it possible to get value without creating an instance ?
Yes, but only via some really horrible code which creates some IL passing in null as this (which you don't use in your property), using a DynamicMethod. Sample code:
// Jon Skeet explicitly disclaims any association with this horrible code.
// THIS CODE IS FOR FUN ONLY. USING IT WILL INCUR WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.
using System;
using System.Reflection.Emit;
public class MyClass
{
public string Name { get{ return "David"; } }
}
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
var method = typeof(MyClass).GetProperty("Name").GetGetMethod();
var dynamicMethod = new DynamicMethod("Ugly", typeof(string),
Type.EmptyTypes);
var generator = dynamicMethod.GetILGenerator();
generator.Emit(OpCodes.Ldnull);
generator.Emit(OpCodes.Call, method);
generator.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);
var ugly = (Func<string>) dynamicMethod.CreateDelegate(
typeof(Func<string>));
Console.WriteLine(ugly());
}
}
Please don't do this. Ever. It's ghastly. It should be trampled on, cut up into little bits, set on fire, then cut up again. Fun though, isn't it? ;)
This works because it's using call instead of callvirt. Normally the C# compiler would use a callvirt call even if it's not calling a virtual member because that gets null reference checking "for free" (as far as the IL stream is concerned). A non-virtual call like this doesn't check for nullity first, it just invokes the member. If you checked this within the property call, you'd find it's null.
EDIT: As noted by Chris Sinclair, you can do it more simply using an open delegate instance:
var method = typeof(MyClass).GetProperty("Name").GetGetMethod();
var openDelegate = (Func<MyClass, string>) Delegate.CreateDelegate
(typeof(Func<MyClass, string>), method);
Console.WriteLine(openDelegate(null));
(But again, please don't!)
You can make that property static
public static string Name{ get{ return "David"; } }
Usage:
MyClass.Name;
You requirements do seem strange, but I think you're looking for some kind of metadata. You can use an attribute to achieve this:
public class NameAttribute : Attribute {
public string Name { get; private set; }
public NameAttribute(string name) {
Name = name;
}
}
[Name("George")]
public class Dad {
public string Name {
get {
return NameGetter.For(this.GetType());
}
}
}
[Name("Frank")]
public class Son : Dad {
}
public static class NameGetter {
public static string For<T>() {
return For(typeof(T));
}
public static string For(Type type) {
// add error checking ...
return ((NameAttribute)type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(NameAttribute), false)[0]).Name;
}
}
Now this code can get names with and without instances:
Console.WriteLine(new Dad().Name);
Console.WriteLine(new Son().Name);
Console.WriteLine(NameGetter.For<Dad>());
Console.WriteLine(NameGetter.For<Son>());
You can make your property static, as pointed out by many others.
public static string Name{ get{ return "David"; } }
Be aware that this means your instances of MyClass will no longer have their own Name property, since static members belong to the class, not the individual object instances of it.
Edit:
In a note, you mentioned that you want to override the Name property in subclasses. At the same time, you want to be able to access it at the class level (access it without creating an instance of your class).
For the static properties, you would simply create a new Name property in each class. Since they are static, you're always (almost always, yay reflection) going to access them using a specific class, so you'd be specifying which version of Name you want to get. If you want to try and hack polymorphism in there and get the name from any given subclass of MyClass, you could do so using reflection, but I wouldn't recommend doing so.
Using the example from your comment:
public class Dad
{
public static string Name { get { return "George"; }
}
public class Son : Dad
{
public static string Name { get{ return "Frank"; }
}
public static void Test()
{
Console.WriteLine(Dad.Name); // prints "George"
Console.WriteLine(Son.Name); // prints "Frank"
Dad actuallyASon = new Son();
PropertyInfo nameProp = actuallyASon.GetType().GetProperty("Name");
Console.WriteLine(nameProp.GetValue(actuallyASon, null)); // prints "Frank"
}
As a side note, since you are declaring a property that has only a getter and it is returning a constant value, I recommend possibly using a const or static readonly variable instead.
public const string Name = "David";
public static readonly string Name = "David";
Usage for both would be the same:
string name = MyClass.Name;
The main benefit (and drawback) of const is that all references to it are actually replaced by its value when the code is compiled. That means it will be a little faster, but if you ever change its value, you will need to recompile ALL code that references it.
Whenever you write C# code, always check if your method and property getter/setter code does anything at all with other instance members of the class. If they don't, be sure to apply the static keyword. Certainly the case here, it trivially solves your problem.
The reason I really post to this question is that there's a bit of language bias at work in some of the answers. The C# rule that you can't call an instance method on a null object is a specific C# language rule. It is without a doubt a very wise one, it really helps to troubleshoot NullReferenceExceptions, they are raised at the call site instead of somewhere inside of a method where it gets very hard to diagnose that the this reference is null.
But this is certainly not a requirement to the CLR, nor of every language that run on the CLR. In fact, even C# doesn't enforce it consistently, you can readily bypass it in an extension method:
public static class Extensions {
public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this string obj) {
return obj != null && obj.Length > 0;
}
}
...
string s = null;
bool empty = s.IsNullOrEmpty(); // Fine
And using your property from a language that doesn't have the same rule works fine as well. Like C++/CLI:
#include "stdafx.h"
using namespace System;
using namespace ClassLibrary1; // Add reference
int main(array<System::String ^> ^args)
{
MyClass^ obj = nullptr;
String^ name = obj->Name; // Fine
Console::WriteLine(name);
return 0;
}
Create a static property:
public class MyClass
{
public static string Name { get { return "David"; } }
public MyClass()
{
}
}
Get it like so:
string name1 = MyClass.Name;
That is not possible. As Name is an instance property, you can only get its value if you have an instance.
Also, note that you are not talking about a parameter, but about a property.
Create a static class or a static property, and you don't have to explicitly instantiate it.
Is the following not a good practice?
public interface IMyImmutableData
{
int Data { get;}
}
public interface IMyMutableData
{
int Data { set;get;}//implements both get and set
}
public class MyData : IMyImmutableData, IMyMutableData
{
public int Data{get;set;} //implements both IMyImmutableData, IMyMutableData
}
void Main()
{
MyData myData = new MyData{Data=10};
Console.WriteLine(myData.Data);
}
The reason I ask is that resharper gives me the following warning: "possible ambiguity while accessing by this interface"
The reason I want to do the above is that when I create methods that use the MyData class, I would like to send it either as IMyMutable or IMyImmutable objects, so that users of the method know that they can expect the method to update or not update the passed in object.
I think you can ignore resharper's warning, as the ambiguity is intentional.
However, usually a wrapper class is used to provide readonly access to something, that way it can't be cast to anything that does provide more functionality.
public class MyReadonlyData : IMyReadonlyData {
private MyData instance;
public int Data {
get {
return instance.Data;
}
}
public MyReadonlyData( MyData mydata ) {
instance = mydata;
}
}
// no access to original object or setters, period.
You need to make one or both of the implementations explicit:
public int IMyImmutableData.Data { get; }
public int IMyMutableData.Data { get; set; }
When you mark one as explicit, it can only be accessed when specifically cast as that type:
MyData obj = new MyData();
obj.Data; // Doesnt exist
(obj as IMyImmutableData).Data // Exists, specifically cast as this interface
If you choose to not mark one as explicit, it will be the property chosen when cast as other appropriate types.
I think in this case your structure is fine. You don't want to explicitly implement the interfaces via separate properties, because then the Data you access via the immutable interface will actually be different than that for the mutable interface.
Also, your actual code is likely more complex, because in this case there is no ambiguity: you are accessing Data via the object itself, so interfaces need not be considered.
One solution with explicit interface implementation would be to use a common backing field, rather than auto-properties:
private int _data;
public int IMyImmutableData.Data
{
get
{
return this._data;
}
}
public int IMyMutableData.Data
{
get
{
return this._data;
}
set
{
this._data = value;
}
}
You could cast the variable and tell the compiler what exactly you mean: (resolve ambiguity)
MyData myData = new MyData{Data=10};
Console.WriteLine( ((IMyMutableData)(myData)).Data );
You need a combined interface with a "new" qualifier on the read-write interface to avoid the squawk. Further, your interfaces are poorly named. Better names would be something like "IReadableData" and "IWritableData", and "IReadWriteData". Note that while "IReadableData" does not provide any means of mutating the data, that by no stretch of the imagination implies that the data is immutable. If something is immutable it won't every be changed by anyone; that would clearly not be the case with an object of type MyData.