Develop Reference

Implement IList<ISomeInterface> with List<SomeObjectThatImplementsISomeInterface>

I have a set of interfaces using each others like this:
public interface IModel
{
string Name { get; }
IModelParameters Parameters { get; }
}
public interface IModelParameter
{
int Value { get; }
}
public interface IModelParameters: IList<IModelParameter>
{
void DoSomething();
}
And to implement those interfaces, I have defined those classes:
public class Model: IModel
{
string Name { get; internal set; }
public ModelParameters Parameters { get; private set; }
IModelParameters IModel.Parameters { get { return Factors; } }
}
public class ModelParameter: IModelParameter
{
int Value { get; internal set; }
}
public class ModelParameters: List<ModelParameter>, IModelParameters
{
void DoSomething()
{
// actual code
}
}
This does not compile because List<ModelParameter> implements IList<ModelParameter> and not IList<IModelParameter> as required by IModelParameters
Changing ModelParameters to be List<IModelParameter> fixes the compilation but it breaks Entity Framework migration generation because it no longer recognizes the list as a navigation property because the type parameter is an interface, not a regular class.
I could also have ModelParameters not implement IModelParameters and declare a second class that gets instantiated and filled directly in the IModelParameters.Factors getter inside Model
But this feels inefficient as it effectively creates two instances of the same list, one for Entity framework and a temporary one for use by the rest of the application. And because this temporary is filled at runtime, it introduces another potential point of failure.
This is why I'm trying to find a way to express the fact List<ModelParameter> implements IList<IModelParameter> just fine because ModelParameter implements IModelParameter itself.
I have a feeling that covariance/contravariance might be of help here, but I'm not sure how to use that.

You cannot do this. It it was possible to cast a List<ModelParameter> to IList<IModelParameter> you could try adding a object of another type to the list, i.e. class MyOtherModelParam : IModelParameter. And that is a contradiction since the type system guarantees that the list only contains ModelParameter objects.
You could replace it with IReadOnlyList<T>, since this interface do not expose any add or set methods it is safe to cast a List<ModelParameter> to IReadOnlyList<IModelParameter>.
Another possible solution would be to just remove the interface. If you intend to have only one implementation of IModelParameter, the interface serves little purpose, and you might as well just remove it.

Structuremap all instances of abstract

Using Net 4.5.1 and StructureMap 3.1.4
I have services that extending an abstract class:
public abstract class Charting<T> {
protected readonly String baseConfigurationString;
public Charting(String baseConfigurationString)
{
this.baseConfigurationString = baseConfigurationString;
}
...
}
For every concrete service I want to set the baseConfigurationString. Right now I am doing it individually per service:
public class MyRegistry : Registry
{
public MyRegistry()
{
Profile("Development", x => {
ForConcreteType<AveragePartySizeChart>().Configure.Ctor<String>("baseConfigurationString").Is(MyDbConfiguration.getBaseConnectionString());
...next service....about 6 total
});
}
}
Is there anyway to do this generally acting against the abstract class despite it having a generic qualifier?

My suggestion, and what we did with StructureMap for configuration within FubuMVC, is to create a class something like:
public class ConnectionSettings
{
public string Connection {get;set;}
}
and resolve that through StructureMap as a singleton. Then in any class that needs the connection string, just do:
public abstract class DatabaseConnectionUser
{
public DatabaseConnectionUser(ConnectionSettings settings){}
}
Autowiring will connect your ConnectionSettings object to all the class objects that take in
that object in their constructor function.
You could try using a custom IPluginGraphConfiguration class in StructureMap 3 to set the ctor argument explicitly on all Instance's that build a subclass, but I think that would be more work.

This does not solve your abstract constructor argument setting via Profile problem but I would like to suggest that you avoid taking dependencies on primitive types like System.String and use an abstraction instead.
You could have an type IDatabaseSettings which gets the connection settings you desire for either environment variables or application settings.
public interface IDatabaseSettings
{
string DbConnectionString { get; set; }
}
public class DatabaseSettings : IDatabaseSettings
{
public string DbConnectionString { get; set; }
}
public class DatabaseRegistry : Registry
{
public DatabaseRegistry()
{
For<IDatabaseSettings>().Use(c =>
{
var setting = c.GetInstance<DatabaseSettings>();
setting.DbConnectionString =
System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["DatabaseSettings.DBConnectionString"];
return setting;
});
}
}
Important: Your project will need to reference System.Configuration.
If you have a lot of settings you may want to conventionalize this pattern. We use the SettingsProvider out of FubuCore to make this a breeze. You simply have objects that end in Settings which get their properties automatically populated out of application settings. Chad Myers has a nice blog post on it.

Understanding MEF System.Lazy<T,TMetaData>

I have been looking at the inner workings of the StockTrader RI for PRISM.
In this RI, MEF and a custom attribute system are used in combination to register views with regions as opposed to hooking up things to the RegionManager in the Module Initializer.
More specifically, there is a ViewExportAttribute which implements:
MetaDataAttribute
IViewRegionRegistration
The MetaDataAttribute and the "Attribute View" IViewRegionRegistration can be leveraged by System.Lazy<T,TMetaData> in AutoPopulateExportedViewsBehavior to achieve proper linking of regions and views.
In general the interplay between System.Lazy<T,TMetaData> and the actual metadata is elaborated here, more specifically the section "Using Strongly-typed Metadata".
To be clear, I understand the intent of Lazy and it clearly works. However, what I completely do not understand is where and how the link occurs between the metadata view supplied by the attribute (which is just an interface) and filling the TMetaData properties with the actual data supplied by the MetaDataAttribute.
To make my request even clearer, from the previously referenced example:
First, an interface is defined that can serve as a sort of template to pass certain metadata:
public interface IMessageSenderCapabilities
{
MessageTransport Transport { get; }
bool IsSecure { get; }
}
Next, A corresponding MetaDataAttribute is defined (which has the same properties as the previous interface)
[MetadataAttribute]
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, AllowMultiple=false)]
public class MessageSenderAttribute : ExportAttribute
{
public MessageSenderAttribute() : base(typeof(IMessageSender)) { }
public MessageTransport Transport { get; set; }
public bool IsSecure { get; set; }
}
The attribute can be used in an export, where actual values are set for the attribute properties:
[MessageSender(Transport=MessageTransport.Smtp, IsSecure=true)]
public class SecureEmailSender : IMessageSender
{
public void Send(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine(message);
}
}
Now finally, we can do some importing:
public class HttpServerHealthMonitor
{
[ImportMany]
public Lazy<IMessageSender, IMessageSenderCapabilities>[] Senders { get; set; }
public void SendNotification()
{
foreach(var sender in Senders)
{
if (sender.Metadata.Transport == MessageTransport.Smtp &&
sender.Metadata.IsSecure)
{
var messageSender = sender.Value;
messageSender.Send("Server is fine");
break;
}
}
}
}
In this last step: sender.Metadata.Transport is evaluated on that very Lazy<>. Therefore, somewhere along the way, Lazy is made aware of the actual values of the metadata, not just the interface it gets passed. I want to understand how that happens, who or what is responsible for that. Even if it is just a very general flow.

After some more Reflector I think I can start to formulate an answer, although it turns out a lot of things are happening so this answer might evolve. I am writing it down hear for the benefit of learning this myself.
MEFBootsrapper.Run()
...
MEFBootstrapper.Container.GetExports(...) because CompositionContainer : ExportProvider, ... and ExportProvider defines public Lazy<T, TMetadataView> GetExport<T, TMetadataView>().
Next private Lazy<T, TMetadataView> GetExportCore<T, TMetadataView>(string contractName)
Next internal static Lazy<T, M> CreateStronglyTypedLazyOfTM<T, M>(Export export)
In here, AttributedModelServices.GetMetadataView<M>(export.Metadata) where M is the type of the MetaDataView. Whereas export is itself of type System.ComponentModel.Composition.Primitives.Export and this has a field ExportDefenition of which an inherited AttributedExportDefenition exists.
AttributedExportDefenition.MetaData whose getter contains this._member.TryExportMetadataForMember(out strs);
TryExportMetadataForMember(...) finally has a check type.IsAttributeDefined<MetadataAttributeAttribute> to see if there is a MetadataAttribute applied such as for MessageSenderAttribute in the question.
So this is more or less (very roughly) how we get to the actual metadata on the export and so probably with some more detours these exported metadata will also reach the Lazy although I am still to find out how that would work exactly.
Any feedback would still be appreciated.

Trying to understand what is going on with the code in my original question has spawned another question:
There is a subtle difference between the StockTrader RI and the example provided in the MEF Documentation
In Stocktrader, ViewExportAttribute is defined:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, AllowMultiple = false)]
[MetadataAttribute]
public sealed class ViewExportAttribute : ExportAttribute, IViewRegionRegistration
{
... omitted for brevity ...
}
The MEF docs give a similar example (also in the original question):
[MetadataAttribute]
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, AllowMultiple=false)]
public class MessageSenderAttribute : ExportAttribute
{
public MessageSenderAttribute() : base(typeof(IMessageSender)) { }
public MessageTransport Transport { get; set; }
public bool IsSecure { get; set; }
}
So with the above code blocks, the difference is that in the first case, the attribute derives from the Interface that defines the "metadata view" whereas in the second example, this is not the case; The attribute just has the same properties as the IMessageSenderCapabilities interface.
"No big deal" you would think but then in StockTrader RI:
[ImportMany(AllowRecomposition = true)]
public Lazy<object, IViewRegionRegistration>[] RegisteredViews { get; set; }
Whereas in the MEF Example:
[ImportMany]
public Lazy<IMessageSender, IMessageSenderCapabilities>[] Senders { get; set; }
So here, the difference is that in Stocktrader RI, the type that we are trying to Lazily import is not specified (it is just object) whereas in the second it is defined more specifically (IMessageSender).
The end result is more or less the same, some type is Lazily imported along with metadata.
However, what I would like to also learn is:
If the differences at the individual key points in both examples are related.
Specifically in the stock trader example, how do we know what to import as Lazy? Is it because the ViewExportAttribute specifically derives from IViewRegionRegistration that we can have Lazy<object, ... later on, i.e. that the system knows what to import because only types with that metadata will be imported? All this without specifying that object will actually be views, i.e. UserControls?

To abstract, or not to abstract

thanks in advance for reading this. I don’t fully understand how/when to use abstracts so I am trying to think about it each project I work on to see if it will all click some day Smile | :)
Also, the mix of accessibility levels (private, protected, internal) with keywords static, abstract, and override tend to leave me a little confused. How do I define this method/property/class....
It's not all a big mystery to me but some projects have me coding in circles when dealing with these topics.
With that said,
I have an application that reads an XML document and outputs text and image files. I’m also storing all of the information in a database. I have it working nicely.
The XML has a standard implementation with required fields and is used by multiple organizations to submit data to my app. All organizations should use (at least) the required nodes/elements that are outlined in the XML implementation guide.
So, I want to have a default data object type to be able to derive a specific organization’s data type for required elements. (If this object is going to be used, these are the fields that must be implemented).
If the org. just uses the default requirements, I can use the default object. If they use additional (optional) fields, I’ll have to create a new type inheriting the default type.
My first thought was to use and abstract class that had protected properties for my bare minimum requirements:
public abstract partial class AbstractDataObject
{
protected string DataObjectName;
protected DateTime? DataObjectDate;
etc...
}
Then, if the organization just uses the required elements of the node and no optional elements, I can use a “default” object.
internal partial class DefaultDataObject : AbstractDataObject
{
public new string DataObjectName { get; set; }
public new DateTime? DataObjectDate { get; set; }
etc...
}
But, if an organization uses optional fields of the required node, I can use a derived organization data object.
internal sealed partial class OranizationDataObject : AbstractDataObject
{
public new string DataObjectName { get; set; }
public new DateTime? DataObjectDate { get; set; }
etc...
//Optional fields used by this organization
public string DataObjectCode { get; set; }
etc...
}
Do I need the abstract class? It seems to me I can just have a DefaultDataObject (something like):
internal partial class DefaultDataObject
{
public virtual string DataObjectName { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime? DataObjectDate { get; set; }
etc...
}
And then:
internal sealed partial class OranizationDataObject : DefaultDataObject
{
public override string DataObjectName { get; set; }
public override DateTime? DataObjectDate { get; set; }
etc...
//Optional fields used by this organization
public string DataObjectCode { get; set; }
etc...
}
I’m just really trying to understand how to define these objects so I can reuse them per organization. Both ways seem to work, but I am hoping to understand how to define them properly.
Getting the XML into above objects:
public DefaultDataObject ExtractXmlData(XContainer root)
{
var myObject = (from t in root.
Elements("ElementA").Elements("ElementB")
select new DefaultDataObject()
{
DataObjectName = (String)t.Element("ChildElement1"),
DataObjectDate =
Program.TryParseDateTime((String)
t.Elements("ChildElement2")
.ElementAtOrDefault(0)
),
etc....
OR
public OranizationDataObject ExtractXmlData(XContainer root)
{
var myObject = (from t in root.
Elements("ElementA").Elements("ElementB")
select new OranizationDataObject()
{
DataObjectName = (String)t.Element("ChildElement1"),
DataObjectDate = Program.TryParseDateTime(
(String)t.Elements("ChildElement2")
.ElementAtOrDefault(0)),
DataObjectCode = (String)t.Element("ChildElement3"),
etc....
Again, thanks for reading. Don't forget to tip your wait staff....
Joe

First of all, your base class doesn't need to be abstract if it's a plain DTO class. If you don't have any functionality that needs to be implemented differently by derived classes, you can simply make it a plain base class which will hold common properties.
Next, there is no point in declaring properties in the base class (abstract in your case), if you are going to hide them (using the new keyword). You first code snippet of DefaultDataObject unnecessarily creates a bunch of new properties with the same name. Remove them completely - they are already defined in the base class.
[Edit] I didn't notice this initially, and #svick warned me, that your base class actually contained fields instead of properties, which makes me wonder why you needed to add the new keyword at all. I went over your code quickly and saw them as properties. In any case, you should never expose public fields - at least change them to auto-implemented properties by adding the { get; set; } block.
In other words, this would simply work:
// this doesn't need to be abstract.
// just put all the common stuff inside.
public class BaseDO
{
// as svick pointed out, these should also be properties.
// you should *never* expose public fields in your classes.
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime? Date { get; set; }
}
// don't use the new keyword to hide stuff.
// in most cases, you won't need that's behavior
public class DerivedDO : BaseDO
{
// no need to repeat those properties from above,
// only add **different ones**
public string Code { get; set; }
}
As a side note, but nevertheless important IMHO, you should simplify naming (and make it more clearer what your code does). There is no need to repeat "DataObject" in every property name, for example. But since your code is probably only a simplified version, it doesn't matter.
Lastly, have you heard of XmlSerializer? You don't need to traverse the XML elements manually. It is enough to call XmlSerializer to both serialize and deserialize your data.

Everything I need to know I learned from Sesame Street
Scrub your class design hard to make sure you've identified everything that is the same and different. Play computer, so to speak, with your classes and see how they do the same, different, or the same thing but in different ways.
What is the same, different, same but differently will likely change as you play computer.
Think in general terms of the two pillars of OO Classes. Polymorphism and Inheritance
As you do the above that is. Not so much in terms of C# implementation per se.
How things clump into same vs. different will help drive implementation
And it's all relative.
More of same default behavior? Perhaps a concrete base class instead of abstract.
More of same thing, but differently? Perhaps an abstract class instead of concrete base class.
A default way of doing x? Perhaps a virtual method.
Everyone does the same thing, but no two the same way? A delegate perhaps.
Implementation Suggestions
Make methods and fields protected as a default. Private does not get inherited. Designs change, stay flexible. If something just has to be private, fine.
virtual means you can change implementation in a sub class. It does not mean you must.
Folks seem to under-utilize delegates. They're super for polymorphic methods.
There is nothing wrong with public fields. What's the practical difference between a public field and a public auto-implemented property? Nothing. They both directly return (or set) the underlying value. So what's the point of even bothering with properties? If you want to publicly expose an underlying value differently than it's "natural" state. For example, returning a number in a specific format. And of course you can have different properties for the same field.
A Property can have a get without a set. Or vice versa. Also get and set can have different access levels. Often you'll see this as a public get and a protected (or private) set.

It depends on what the derived types will want to do. If they are going to use the default implementation and only expand on it somehow, then having the default class as the non-abstract base class is fine.
On the other hand, if they are most likely going to re-implement the functionality, you should have an abstract base class (or an interface) and a separate default class.
If you for some reason don't know which one is it, you can let the inheritors choose by having an abstract base class and leaving the default class unsealed.
Also, looking at your code, it seems you misunderstand what the various keywords do. Most of the time, you do not want to use new like this. What it does is to define another member with the same name, unrelated to the original one. Also, there's no reason to override something if you don't want to change it. So, if you expect that the derived classes won't have to reimplement the properties, you don't have to make them virtual at all.

An abstract class can already implement things that can be inherited
public abstract class DataObjectBase
{
public string DataObjectName { get; set; }
public DateTime? DataObjectDate { get; set; }
}
A concrete class can add new properties and methods
public class DerivedDataObject : DataObjectBase
{
public int NewProperty { get; set; }
}
The properties DataObjectName and DataObjectDate are already available in the new class, because they are automatically inherited from the base class.
If the abstract class defined an abstract member, however, you would have to implement it in the derived class.
Say the base class defines
public abstract void SomeMethod(string name);
The the derived class has to do this
public override void SomeMethod(string name)
{
...
}
If your base class does not have abstract members, it does not need to be abstract and can play the role of your default data object directly.
The keyword 'partial` is not needed here. It is only useful if you want to split one class into several pieces over several files.
The keyword new is wrong here. It is used to shadow an inherited member. This means that the inherited member will be hidden "behind" the new declaration. What you need, is to override. This does not hide a member, but provide an alternative implementation of the same member in the derived class.

How to hide an inherited property in a class without modifying the inherited class (base class)?

If i have the following code example:
public class ClassBase
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class ClassA : ClassBase
{
public int JustNumber { get; set; }
public ClassA()
{
this.ID = 0;
this.Name = string.Empty;
this.JustNumber = string.Empty;
}
}
What should I do to hide the property Name (Don't shown as a member of ClassA members) without modifying ClassBase ?

I smell a code smell here. It is my opinion that you should only inherit a base class if you're implementing all of the functionality of that base class. What you're doing doesn't really represent object oriented principles properly. Thus, if you want to inherit from your base, you should be implementing Name, otherwise you've got your inheritance the wrong way around. Your class A should be your base class and your current base class should inherit from A if that's what you want, not the other way around.
However, not to stray too far from the direct question. If you did want to flout "the rules" and want to continue on the path you've chosen - here's how you can go about it:
The convention is to implement the property but throw a NotImplementedException when that property is called - although, I don't like that either. But that's my personal opinion and it doesn't change the fact that this convention still stands.
If you're attempting to obsolete the property (and it's declared in the base class as virtual), then you could either use the Obsolete attribute on it:
[Obsolete("This property has been deprecated and should no longer be used.", true)]
public override string Name
{
get
{
return base.Name;
}
set
{
base.Name = value;
}
}
(Edit: As Brian pointed out in the comments, the second parameter of the attribute will cause a compiler error if someone references the Name property, thus they won't be able to use it even though you've implemented it in derived class.)
Or as I mentioned use NotImplementedException:
public override string Name
{
get
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
set
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
However, if the property isn't declared as virtual, then you can use the new keyword to replace it:
public new string Name
{
get
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
set
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
You can still use the Obsolete attribute in the same manner as if the method was overridden, or you can throw the NotImplementedException, whichever you choose. I would probably use:
[Obsolete("Don't use this", true)]
public override string Name { get; set; }
or:
[Obsolete("Don't use this", true)]
public new string Name { get; set; }
Depending on whether or not it was declared as virtual in the base class.

While technically the property won't be hidden, one way to strongly discourage its use is to put attributes on it like these:
[Browsable(false)]
[Bindable(false)]
[DesignerSerializationVisibility(DesignerSerializationVisibility.Hidden)]
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
This is what System.Windows.Forms does for controls that have properties that don't fit. The Text property, for instance, is on Control, but it doesn't make sense on every class that inherits from Control. So in MonthCalendar, for instance, the Text property appears like this (per the online reference source):
[Browsable(false),
EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never),
Bindable(false),
DesignerSerializationVisibility(DesignerSerializationVisibility.Hidden)]
public override string Text {
get { return base.Text; }
set { base.Text = value; }
}
Browsable - whether the member shows up in the Properties window
EditorBrowsable - whether the member shows up in the Intellisense dropdown
EditorBrowsable(false) won't prevent you from typing the property, and if you use the property, your project will still compile. But since the property doesn't appear in Intellisense, it won't be as obvious that you can use it.

Just hide it
public class ClassBase
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class ClassA : ClassBase
{
public int JustNumber { get; set; }
private new string Name { get { return base.Name; } set { base.Name = value; } }
public ClassA()
{
this.ID = 0;
this.Name = string.Empty;
this.JustNumber = 0;
}
}
Note: Name will still be a public member of ClassBase, given the constraint of not changing the base class there is no way to stop that.

Why force inheritance when it's not necessary?
I think the proper way of doing it is by doing has-a instead of a is-a.
public class ClassBase
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class ClassA
{
private ClassBase _base;
public int ID { get { return this._base.ID; } }
public string JustNumber { get; set; }
public ClassA()
{
this._base = new ClassBase();
this._base.ID = 0;
this._base.Name = string.Empty;
this.JustNumber = string.Empty;
}
}

I don’t think a lot of the people replying here understand inheritance at all. There is a need to inherit from a base class and hide its once public var’s and functions. Example, lets say you have a basic engine and you want to make a new engine that is supercharged. Well, 99% of the engine you will use but you will tweak a bit of its functionality to make it run much better and yet still there is some functionality that should only be shown to the modifications made, not the end user. Because we all know that every class MS puts out doesn’t really ever need any modifications.
Besides using the new to simply override the functionality it is one of the things that Microsoft in their infinite wis….. oh, I mean mistakes considered a tool not worthwhile anymore.
The best way to accomplish this now is multi-level inheritance.
public class classA
{
}
public class B : A
{}
public class C : B
{}
Class B does all your work and class C exposes what you need exposed.

You can't, that's the whole point of inheritance: the subclass must offer all methods and properties of the base class.
You could change the implementation to throw an exception when the property is called (if it were virtual)...

I completely agree that properties should not be removed from base classes, but sometimes a derived class might have a different more appropriate way to enter the values. In my case, for example, I am inheriting from ItemsControl. As we all know, ItemsControl has the ItemsSource property, but I want my control to merge data from 2 sources (for example, Person and Location). If I were to have the user enter the data using ItemsSource, I would need to separate and then recombine the values, so I created 2 properties to enter the data. But back to the original question, this leaves the ItemsSource, which I do not want the user to use because I am "replacing" it with my own properties. I like the Browsable and EditorBrowsable ideas, but it still does not prevent the user from using it. The basic point here is that inheritance should keep MOST of the properties, but when there is a large complex class (especially ones where you cannot modify the original code), rewriting everything would be very inefficient.

You can use Browsable(false)
[Browsable( false )]
public override string Name
{
get { return base.Name; }
set { base.Name= value; }
}

I think it is bad design if you have to do this, especially if you are able to design the code from the ground up.
Why?
Good design is to let the base-class share common properties that a certain concept has (virtual or real). Example: System.IO.Stream in C#.
Further down the lane bad design will increase the cost for maintenance and make implementation harder and harder. Avoid this as much as possible!
Basic rules which I use:
Minimize the number of properties and methods in the base-class. If you do not expect to use some properties or methods in a class that inherits the base class; do not put it in the baseclass then. If you are in the developmentstage of a project; always go back to the drawing-board now an then to check the design because things change! Redesign when needed. When your project is live the costs for changing things later in the design will go up!
If you are using a baseclass implemented by a 3:rd party, consider "go up" one level instead of "overriding" with "NotImplementedException" or such. If there is no other level, consider design the code from scratch.
Always consider to seal classes you do not want anyone to be able to inherit it. It forces coders to "go up one level" in the "inheritance- hierarchy" and thus "loose ends" like "NotImplementedException" can be avoided.

I know that the question is old, but what you can do is override the PostFilterProperties like this:
protected override void PostFilterProperties(System.Collections.IDictionary properties)
{
properties.Remove("AccessibleDescription");
properties.Remove("AccessibleName");
properties.Remove("AccessibleRole");
properties.Remove("BackgroundImage");
properties.Remove("BackgroundImageLayout");
properties.Remove("BorderStyle");
properties.Remove("Cursor");
properties.Remove("RightToLeft");
properties.Remove("UseWaitCursor");
properties.Remove("AllowDrop");
properties.Remove("AutoValidate");
properties.Remove("ContextMenuStrip");
properties.Remove("Enabled");
properties.Remove("ImeMode");
//properties.Remove("TabIndex"); // Don't remove this one or the designer will break
properties.Remove("TabStop");
//properties.Remove("Visible");
properties.Remove("ApplicationSettings");
properties.Remove("DataBindings");
properties.Remove("Tag");
properties.Remove("GenerateMember");
properties.Remove("Locked");
//properties.Remove("Modifiers");
properties.Remove("CausesValidation");
properties.Remove("Anchor");
properties.Remove("AutoSize");
properties.Remove("AutoSizeMode");
//properties.Remove("Location");
properties.Remove("Dock");
properties.Remove("Margin");
properties.Remove("MaximumSize");
properties.Remove("MinimumSize");
properties.Remove("Padding");
//properties.Remove("Size");
properties.Remove("DockPadding");
properties.Remove("AutoScrollMargin");
properties.Remove("AutoScrollMinSize");
properties.Remove("AutoScroll");
properties.Remove("ForeColor");
//properties.Remove("BackColor");
properties.Remove("Text");
//properties.Remove("Font");
}