This would be the first time I'd use delegates in c# so please bear with me. I've read a lot about them but never thought of how/why to use this construct until now.
I have some code that looks like this:
public class DoWork()
{
public MethodWorkA(List<long> TheList) {}
public void MethodWork1(parameters) {}
public void MethodWork2(parameters) {}
}
I call MethodWorkA from a method outside the class and MethodWorkA calls MethodWork 1 and 2. When I call methodA, I'd like to pass some sort of parameter so that sometimes it just does MethodWork1 and sometimes it does both MethodWork1 and MethodWork2.
So when I call the call it looks like this:
DoWork MyClass = new DoWork();
MyClass.MethodA...
Where does the delegate syntax fit in this?
Thanks.
public void MethodWorkA(Action<ParamType1, ParamType2> method) {
method(...);
}
You can call it using method group conversion:
MethodWorkA(someInstance.Method1);
You can also create a multicast delegate that calls two methods:
MethodWorkA(someInstance.Method1 + someInstance.Method2);
For what you described, you don't need delegates.
Just do something like this:
public class DoWork
{
public void MethodWorkA(List<long> theList, bool both)
{
if (both)
{
MethodWork1(1);
MethodWork2(1);
}
else MethodWork1(1);
}
public void MethodWork1(int parameters) { }
public void MethodWork2(int parameters) { }
}
If you're just experimenting with delegates, here goes:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
Func<string, string> doThis;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
Shown += Form1_Shown;
}
void Form1_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
doThis = do1;
Text = doThis("a");
doThis = do2;
Text = doThis("a");
}
string do1(string s)
{
MessageBox.Show(s);
return "1";
}
string do2(string s)
{
MessageBox.Show(s);
return "2";
}
}
Considering that all methods are inside the same class, and you call MethodWorkA function using an instance of the class, I honestly, don't see any reason in using Action<T> or delegate, as is I understood your question.
When I call methodA, I'd like to pass some sort of parameter so that
sometimes it just does MethodWork1 and sometimes it does both
MethodWork1 and MethodWork2.
Why do not just pass a simple parameter to MethodWorkA, like
public class DoWork()
{
public enum ExecutionSequence {CallMethod1, CallMethod2, CallBoth};
public MethodWorkA(List<long> TheList, ExecutionSequence exec)
{
if(exec == ExecutionSequence.CallMethod1)
MethodWork1(..);
else if(exec == ExecutionSequence.CallMethod2)
MethodWork2(..);
else if(exec == ExecutionSequence.Both)
{
MethodWork1(..);
MethodWork2(..);
}
}
public void MethodWork1(parameters) {}
public void MethodWork2(parameters) {}
}
Much simplier and understandable for your class consumer.
If this is not what you want, please explain.
EDIT
Just to give you an idea what you can do:
Example:
public class Executor {
public void MainMethod(long parameter, IEnumerable<Action> functionsToCall) {
foreach(Action action in functionsToCall) {
action();
}
}
}
and in the code
void Main()
{
Executor exec = new Executor();
exec.MainMethod(10, new List<Action>{()=>{Console.WriteLine("Method1");},
()=>{Console.WriteLine("Method2");}
});
}
The output will be
Method1
Method2
In this way you, for example, can push into the collection only functions you want to execute. Sure, in this case, the decision logic (which functions have to be executed) is determined outside of the call.
Related
I'm new to passing delegates and was wondering if the following code is possible to do?
CommandQueue.AddCommand(
new CommandItem(
group.MyGroupActionMovement(
new Vector3(-1000,-1000,-1000))));
ok to elaborate I'm going to do a code dump of my bad attempt at the command pattern...
So I'm trying to create a queue of commands. Starting with just the movement command. It takes a vector3 as a parameter. Other Commands will have different parameters like enums and game objects.
This is supposed to be my interface for commands/actions but, I've been messing with it to see what I can do.
public class IGroupAction: MonoBehaviour
{
public delegate bool Del(Vector3 destination);
public virtual bool Execute()
{
return true;
}
}
This is supposed to be the command/action unit/item
public class GroupActionItem
{
public IGroupAction MyGroupAction;
public GroupActionItem(IGroupAction.Del action)
{
}
public bool PerformAction()
{
return MyGroupAction.Execute();
}
}
This is the command pattern that I've completed so far
public class GroupAction
{
public List<GroupActionItem> Actions;
public GroupAction()
{
Actions = new List<GroupActionItem>();
}
public void AddAction(GroupActionItem groupActionItem)
{
Actions.Add(groupActionItem);
}
public void ClearActions()
{
Actions.Clear();
}
public void PerformActions()
{
if (Actions.Count >= 1)
{
if(Actions[0].PerformAction())
{
Actions.Remove(Actions[0]);
}
}
}
}
This is where I execute the movement command
public class GroupActionMovement : IGroupAction
{
public override bool Execute()
{
return Movement();
}
public bool Movement(Vector3 destination)
{
return true;
}
}
public class Group : MonoBehaviour
{
public GroupActionMovement MyGroupActionMovement;
}
This is the execution of the coded behavior.
public class Player : MonoBehaviour
{
public Dictionary<Group,GroupAction> PlayerGroupsActions;
public List<Group> Groups;
void Start()
{
PlayerGroupsActions = new Dictionary<Group, GroupAction>();
Groups = GetComponentsInChildren<Group>().ToList();
foreach (Group group in Groups)
{
GroupAction playerGroupActions = new GroupAction();
PlayerGroupsActions.Add(group,playerGroupActions);
}
}
void Update()
{
if (Input.GetKeyDown(KeyCode.Alpha1))
{
//remove the foreach
foreach (Group group in Groups)
{
//directly apply the group
PlayerGroupsActions.TryGetValue(group, out GroupAction playerGroupActions);
if (playerGroupActions != null)
{
playerGroupActions.AddAction(new GroupActionItem(group.MyGroupActionMovement.Movement));
}
}
}
foreach (Group group in Groups)
{
PlayerGroupsActions.TryGetValue(group, out GroupAction playerFormationActions);
if (playerFormationActions != null)
{
if (playerFormationActions.Actions.Count != 0)
{
playerFormationActions.PerformActions();
}
}
}
}
}
I'm sorry if this isn't the best explanation of what is going on or, that a code dump is not the best way to explain what i'm doing.
don't pass it as a method, use something like this
CommandQueue.Command += doSomething;
void doSomething()
{
//doSomething
}
So that whenever the function CommandQueue.Command is run in the seperate class it will also run the doSomething() void in the main class
A delegate is not a method call, but the method it self, for the receiver to call it, whenever its needs to, with the parameters it wants.
Here is an example:
public delegate int MyDelegate(Vector3 vec);
public class MyCallingClass
{
public void DoSomething(MyDelegate method)
{
// Do something.
int result = method(new Vector3(-1000, -1000, -1000));
// Do something else.
}
}
public class MyClass
{
public static int MyStaticMethod(Vector3 arg)
{
// Do something with arg.
return x;
}
int MyMethod(Vector3 arg)
{
// Do something with arg.
return x;
}
private void DelegateWork()
{
MyCallingClass c = // Get an instance of MyCallingClass.
c.DoSomething(this.MyMethod);
c.DoSomething(MyClass.MyStaticMethod);
}
}
Multiple things to understand here:
At line c.DoSomething(this.MyMethod), the this is captured into the delegate you pass, meaning that when MyCallingClass.DoSomething will call the delegate, it will be called on the instance of MyClass. The line c.DoSomething(MyClass.MyStaticMethod) will call it with no instance, because it is a static method.
This is the method MyCallingClass.DoSomething that decides what parameters to pass, not the one that provides the delegate.
If you need the caller to provide arguments and the calling part to just decide when to call but not deciding what arguments to pass, then you can capture the argument ahead of time, and pass a delegate without argument, as follow.
public delegate int MyDelegate(); // No arguments anymore.
public class MyCallingClass
{
public void DoSomething(MyDelegate method)
{
// Do something.
int result = method(); // Not passing arguments anymore.
// Do something else.
}
}
public class MyClass
{
// ...
private void DelegateWork()
{
MyCallingClass c = // Get an instance of MyCallingClass.
c.DoSomething(() => this.MyMethod(new Vector3(-1000, -1000, -1000)));
c.DoSomething(() => MyClass.MyStaticMethod(new Vector3(-1000, -1000, -1000));
}
}
If you are not familiar with the syntax () => ..., this is a lambda expression, you can see it as an anonymous function created on-the-fly. It still respects the prototype returning an int and taking no parameters. The lambda expression now captures the construction of the Vector3 instance, and so this value will be used when the lambda will be called. A very important aspect to understand is that the values in the lambda expressions are evaluated when the lambda is called, not when it is created (lazy evaluation).
You do not have to use a specific delegate but instead you can use a Func<Vector3, int>, as follow:
// Not actually needed.
// public delegate int MyDelegate(Vector3 vec);
public class MyCallingClass
{
public void DoSomething(Func<Vector3, int> method)
{
...
}
}
Picture a case like this:
I have a controller action (or service method) where I need to call three methods in a consecutive order, each method has a single responsibility.
public return_type MyMethod(_params_) {
// .. some code
Method_1 (...);
Method_2 (...);
Method_3 (...);
// ... some more code
}
A developer can make the mistake of calling Method_2 before Method_1, or at least we can say that nothing forces him to follow this order, or to get an exception when the order isn't followed.
Now we can call Method_2 inside Method_1, and Method_3 inside Method_2, but that doesn't seem right when each method handles a completely different responsibility.
Is there a design pattern for this situation? Or any "clean" way to handle this?
This is exactly what facade pattern do.
Try to extract the three methods to another class, and make them private. Expose a single method MyMethod that calls the other methods in the desired order. Clients should use Facade.MyMethod
More details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facade_pattern
I suppose you should leave control of execution for yourself and give possibility just to set what should be executed.
public interface IMethodsExecutor
{
void Execute();
void ShouldRunMethod1();
void ShouldRunMethod2();
void ShouldRunMethod3();
}
public class MethodsExecutor: IMethodsExecutor
{
private bool _runMethod1;
private bool _runMethod2;
private bool _runMethod3;
public MethodsExecutor()
{
_runMethod1 = false;
_runMethod2 = false;
_runMethod3 = false;
}
public void ShouldRunMethod1()
{
_runMethod1 = true;
}
public void ShouldRunMethod2()
{
_runMethod2 = true;
}
public void ShouldRunMethod3()
{
_runMethod3 = true;
}
private void Method1()
{
}
private void Method2()
{
}
private void Method3()
{
}
public void Execute()
{
if (_runMethod1)
{
Method1();
}
if (_runMethod2)
{
Method2();
}
if (_runMethod3)
{
Method3();
}
}
}
So that the usage will be:
IMethodsExecutor methodsExecutor = new MethodsExecutor();
methodsExecutor.ShouldRunMethod1();
methodsExecutor.ShouldRunMethod3();
methodsExecutor.Execute();
I have several sealed class from a code I can't rewrite. (therefore I can't not make those class implement a same interface).
I have several function that make the same thing for this class:
void fN(int i, sealedClassN sc)
{
list.Add(new delegateCreator(sc));
button.Click += list.[i]._delegate;
}
(and of course delegateCreator( sealedClassN ) is implemented (but without using template because what it does is very different each time))
I would like to create that:
void f<sealedClass >(int i, sealedClass sc) with sealedClass : sealedClass1or or sealedClass2 or sealedClass3 ....
{
list.Add(new delegateCreator(sc));
button.Click += list.[i]._delegate;
}
Is there a way to do that.
Thank you for your help
Unfortunately, this is not directly possible. I can suggest the following alternatives:
Option 1: Pass a delegateCreator instead:
// call as fN(i, new delegateCreator(sc))
//
void fN(int i, delegateCreator dc)
{
list.Add(dc);
button.Click += list.[i]._delegate;
}
Option 2: If you have a more complicated function which only conditionally creates a delegateCreator, you can pass a lambda expression as the parameter:
// call as fN(i, () => new delegateCreator(sc))
//
void fN(int i, Func<delegateCreator> dcfunc)
{
if (someCondition)
{
list.Add(dcfunc.Invoke());
button.Click += list.[i]._delegate;
}
}
I don't think you can do that. The problem with your T : T1 or T2 ... idea is that you don't have a shared member set for your argument.
Consider this
public class Type1
{
public void M()
{
}
}
public class Type2
{
public void M()
{
}
}
public static class Extension
{
public static void A<T>(T obj) where T : Type1 or Type2
{
obj.M();
}
}
Both classes have a methode M() but for the compiler it isn't the same, because they don't have a shared type that declares this methode.
This is a C#.net question for Objective-C developers who also work with C#.Net
As you know, Objective-C you can parse a method name to a Selector; and the method can also belong to an outside class.
I would like to be able to use this type of method in C#.Net as it would be a lot cleaner than creating loads of Events which can become messy and hard to manage.
If this is possible, how can I achieve this? Thank you!
Example:
public class Main
{
public void MyProcess(Callback toMethod)
{
// do some fancy stuff and send it to callback object
toMethod(result);
}
}
public class Something
{
public void RunMethod()
{
MyProcess(Method1);
MyProcess(Method2);
}
private void Method1(object result)
{
// do stuff for this callback
}
private void Method2(object result)
{
// do stuff for this callback
}
}
I don't know Objective-C, but I think you want something like this:
public class Main
{
public void MyProcess(Action<object> toMethod, object result)
{
// do some fancy stuff and send it to callback object
toMethod(result);
}
}
public class Something
{
public void RunMethod()
{
object result = new object();
MyProcess(Method1, result);
MyProcess(Method2, result);
}
private void Method1(object result)
{
// do stuff for this callback
}
private void Method2(object result)
{
// do stuff for this callback
}
}
You would have to use Delegates. Based on the code in your question, you would declare a delegate:
public delegate void MethodDelegate(object result);
The signature of the process method changes to the following:
public void MyProcess(MethodDelegate toMethod)
{
// do some fancy stuff and send it to callback object
toMethod(result);
}
And then you would call process
public void RunMethod()
{
MyProcess(new MethodDelegate(Method1));
MyProcess(new MethodDelegate(Method1));
}
I'm trying to expose an API such that, I do the following
RegisterCallback<T>(Action<T> func)
{
someObj.FuncPointer = func;
}
Later on, I call func(obj) .. and the obj is of type T that the user said.
More concrete example:
var callbackRegistrar = new CBRegistrar();
callbackRegistrar.RegisterCallback<ISomeClass>(SomeFunc);
public static void SomeFunc(ISomeClass data)
{
//
}
EDIT: So I may not have been clear, so I'll add more code:
I want to make only "one" object of CBRegistrar, and connect it with many Callbacks, as such:
var callbackRegistrar = new CBRegistrar();
callbackRegistrar.RegisterCallback<ISomeClass>(SomeFunc);
callbackRegistrar.RegisterCallback<ISomeOtherClass>(SomeFunc2);
...
In fact the above code is called by reflecting over a directory of plugins.
The user puts this in their code -->
public static void SomeFunc(ISomeClass data)
{
//
}
public static void SumFunc2(ISomeOtherClass data)
{
//
}
It looks to me as if this is not possible using Generics, etc. What it looks like I might have to do is make an interface called IPlugin or something, and ask the user to do this ..
[PluginIdentifier(typeof(ISomeClass))]
public static void SomeFunc(IPluginData data)
{
var castedStuff = data as ISomeClass; // ISomeClass inherits from IPluginData
}
Seems like asking the user to do stuff that we should take care of, but anyway ...
You need a Action<T> func to store it in. There is a semantic check to make here: if someone calls RegisterCallback twice (with different values), do you want to replace the callback, or keep both ? Assuming the latter, someObj probably wants an event (indeed, this entire API could be exposed as an event), so - in the someObj class:
public event Action<T> FuncPointer;
private void InvokeCallback(T data) {
var handler = FuncPointer;
if(handler != null) handler(data);
}
Noting that RegisterCallback could be replaced entirely, still keeping the data on obj:
public event Action<T> Completed {
add { obj.FuncPointer += value; }
remove { obj.FuncPointer -= value; }
}
Then usage would be:
var callbackRegistrar = new CBRegistrar();
callbackRegistrar.Completed += SomeFunc;
Callback functions are not much used in C#. They've been replaced by events which are more elegant and easier to work with.
class CBRegistrar
{
public delegate void ActionRequiredEventHandler(object sender, ISomeClass e);
public event ActionRequiredEventHandler ActionRequired;
void RaiseActionRequiredEvent(ISomeClass parm)
{
if ( ActionRequired != null)
{
ActionRequired(this, parm);
}
}
}
class APIConsumer
{
var callbackRegistrar = new CBRegistrar();
public APIConsumer()
{
callbackRegistrar.ActionRequired += SomeFunc;
}
public void SomeFunc(object sender, ISomeClass data)
{
}
}
If you still want to use Callbacks, you can use Delegates which are more or less function pointer.
The CBRegistrar will need to be generic (if it's OK to keep a single callback type) or it can do some internal casting (if several callback types need to be registered).
public class CBRegistrar<T>
{
private Action<T> callback;
private Dictionary<Type, object> callbackMap;
public CBRegistrar()
{
this.callbackMap = new Dictionary<Type, object>();
}
public void RegisterCallback(Action<T> func)
{
this.callback = func;
}
public void RegisterGenericCallback<U>(Action<U> func)
{
this.callbackMap[typeof(U)] = func;
}
public Action<U> GetCallback<U>()
{
return this.callbackMap[typeof(U)] as Action<U>;
}
}
public interface ISomeClass
{
string GetName();
}
public class SomeClass : ISomeClass
{
public string GetName()
{
return this.GetType().Name;
}
}
namespace ConsoleApplication
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var callbackRegistrar = new CBRegistrar<ISomeClass>();
callbackRegistrar.RegisterCallback(SomeFunc);
callbackRegistrar.RegisterGenericCallback<ISomeClass>(SomeFunc);
var someone = new SomeClass();
callbackRegistrar.GetCallback<ISomeClass>()(someone);
}
public static void SomeFunc(ISomeClass data)
{
// Do something
Console.WriteLine(data.GetName());
}
}
}