Develop Reference

Is this a scenario to use delegates?

I received a win-form application with following pseudo-code. Most of the current function codes are written in the code behind the forms as those functions interact with form controls.
loop through device connections
connect to a device
call a specific function, do some specific work
close the device connection
There are 10 different functions (entirely varied signatures from one another). First version of the application repeated step 1, 2, 4 for all the 10 functions. The second version optimized it by adding select case statement with numeric values to call the functions within device connection-loop.
However I feel that function delegates could improve this code.
But I am quite lost in making an analogue to the delegate concept with what I have in hand. Can I use delegates in this situation and how should I approach it in terms of the application execution/code design?

it's hard to tell having only the pseudo-code but IMO you don't need a delegate - either use Action<...> or Func<...> depending on if you need a result or not.
For example it could look something like this:
static void DoForAllDevices(Action<Connection> action)
{
foreach(var device in myDevices)
{
using (var connection = ConnectTo(device))
{
action(connection);
} // typically Dispose will handle the closing
}
}
then you just have to call it like this
DoForAllDevices(connection => myFirstFun(connection, additionalParameter);
now of course you can add all kind of exception-Handling, etc. inside DoForAllDevices - should be easy to do

Serial communication design pattern

I'm currently assigned to a task to develop a software module to communicate with a stepper motor controller. The project is written in C#, I have a C++ dll to communicate with the controller. The communication runs via the Serial port. I'm planning to write the whole piece in C# by importing the necessary methods by DllImport. The key method looks something like :
ComSendReceive(pHandle, bufferIn,sizeBufferIn,bufferOut,ref bufferOut)
There are several types of messages :
You send message and expect confirmation (not the same for every message, sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's COMPLETE etc..
You send message and receive message - you can receive an error or data (for instance GET_CONTROLLER_ID)
Several other types
Of course I need to control the communication for time-outs.
My question is: Is there any "design pattern" to use for that kind of problem? I'm sure this is quite a common problem many developers have solved already.
To contribute a little - I dealt with similar problem in my last job and I solved it this way :
I had a class to communicate with the Com port and a class AT_message with bunch of overloaded constructors :
class AT_Message
{
public bool DoResponseCheck;
public string ExpectedResponse;
public AT_COMMAND command;
public string data;
public bool AddCarriageReturn;
...
//Plenty of ctors
}
class UnfriendlyInterface
{
Response SendMessage(AT_Message msg)
{
//Communicates directly with C++ dll, send message, check timeouts etc....
}
}
And I had a class the main application was communicating with, it had human friendly methods like
class FriendlyInterface
{
bool AutodetectPortAndOpenComm();
Result AnalyzeSignal(byte[] buffer)
{
Response response = UnfriendlyInterface.SendMessage(new Message(AT_Command.PrepareForSignal, (doResponseCheck)true, ExpectedResponse.Ok,Timeout.short);
Response response = UnfriendlyInterface.SendMessage(new Message(buffer,(doResponseCheck)false,Timeout.long);
//.... Other steps
}
//... other methods
}
Since last time I was really in a big hurry, I implemented first solution that came to my mind. But is there a way to do it better? Now the device I'm communicate with is more complex than the previous one so if there's a way how to do it better, I'd like to do it that way.

This seems like a textbook facade pattern. The answer to all of this is to encapsulate your variation. For example, try to create a generic interface for commands that give an acknowledgement, and write client code to use that interface. Then concrete types can decide how to interpret various acknowledgements into a uniform signal (Ok = Complete = Good, or whatever)
Here's a good article on the facade pattern. Also see the wikipedia article.

How to break down large 'macro' classes?

One application I work on does only one thing, looking from outside world. Takes a file as input and after ~5 minutes spits out another file.
What happens inside is actually a sequential series of action. The application is, in our opinion, structured well because each action is like a small box, without too many dependencies.
Usually some later actions use some information from previous one and just a few can be executed in parallel - for the sake of simplicity we prefer to the execution sequential.
Now the problem is that the function that executes all this actions is like a batch file: a long list of calls to different functions with different arguments. So, looking in the code it looks like:
main
{
try
{
result1 = Action1(inputFile);
result2 = Action2(inputFile);
result3 = Action3(result2.value);
result4 = Action4(result1.value, inputFile);
... //You get the idea. There is no pattern passed paramteres
resultN = ActionN(parameters);
write output
}
catch
{
something went wrong, display the error
}
}
How would you model the main function of this application so is not just a long list of commands?

Not everything needs to fit to a clever pattern. There are few more elegant ways to express a long series of imperative statements than as, well, a long series of imperative statements.
If there are certain kinds of flexibility you feel you are currently lacking, express them, and we can try to propose solutions.
If there are certain clusters of actions and results that are re-used often, you could pull them out into new functions and build "aggregate" actions from them.
You could look in to dataflow languages and libraries, but I expect the gain to be small.

Not sure if it's the best approach, but you could have an object that would store all the results and you would give it to each method in turn. Every method would read the parameters it needs and write its result there. You could then have a collection of actions (either as delegates or objects implementing an interface) and call them in a loop.
class Results
{
public int Result1 { get; set; }
public string Result2 { get; set; }
…
}
var actions = new Action<Results>[] { Action1, Action2, … };
Results results = new Results();
foreach (var action in actions)
action(results);

You can think of implementing a Sequential Workflow from Windows Workflow

First of all, this solution is far not bad. If the actions are disjunct, I mean there are no global parameters or other hidden dependencies between different actions or between actions and the environment, it's a good solution. Easy to maintain or read, and when you need to expand the functionality, you have just to add new actions, when the "quantity" changes, you have just to add or remove lines from the macro sequence. If there's no need for change frequently the process chain: don't move!
If it's a system, where the implementation of actions don't often changes, but their order and parameters yes, you may design a simple script language, and transform the macro class into that script. This script should be maintained by someone else than you, someone who is familiar with the problem domain in the level of your "actions". So, he/she can assembly the application using script language without your assistance.
One nice approach for that kind of problem splitting is dataflow programming (a.k.a. Flow-based programming). In dataflow programming, there are pre-written components. Components are black boxes (from the view of the application developer), they have consumer (input) and producer (output) ports, which can be connected to form a processing network, which is then the application. If there're a good set of components for a domain, many applications can created without programming new components. Also, components can be built of other components (they called composite components).
Wikipedia (good starting point):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataflow_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming
JPM's site (book, wiki, everything):
http://jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/
I think, bigger systems must have that split point you describe as "macro". Even games have that point, e.g. FPS games have a 3D engine and a game logic script, or there's SCUMM VM, which is the same.

C# -Priority based delegates and chaining in delegates possible? or Windows Work Flow?

Whenever i feel hungry i will publish i am hungry.This will be notified to the service providers say (MealsService,FruitService,JuiceService ).(These service providers know what to serve).
But the serving priority is the concern. Priority here means my first choice is MealsService when there are enough meal is available my need is end with MealsService.To verify the enough meal is availabe the MealsService raises the event "updateMeTheStockStatus" to the "MealsServiceStockUpdateListener" .
The "MealsServiceStockUpdateListener" will only reply back to "MealsService" . No other Service providers ( FruitService,JuiceService ) will be notified by the "MealsServiceStockUpdateListener" .If there is no sufficient stock then only the MealsService passes notification to the JuiceService (as it is the second priority).As usual it checks the stock.If stock is not sufficient it passes message to FruitService,so the flow continues like this.
How can i technically implement this?
Any implemention like priority based delagates and delegate chaining make sense ?
(Somebody! Please reframe it for good readability ).
Update : In this model there is no direct communication between "StackUpdateListener" and "me".Only The "Service Providers" will communicate me.

Like other answerers, I'm not entirely convinced that an event is the way forward, but let's go along with it for the moment.
It seems to me that the business with the MealsServiceStockUpdateListener is a red herring really - you're just trying to execute some event handlers but not others. This sort of thing crops up elsewhere when you have a "BeforeXXX" event which allows cancellation, or perhaps some sort of exception handling event.
Basically you need to get at each of your handlers separately. There are two different ways of doing that - either you can use a normal multicast delegate and call GetInvocationList() or you can change your event declaration to explicitly keep a list of handlers:
private List<EventHandler> handlers = new List<EventHandler>();
public event EventHandler MealRequired
{
add { handlers.Add(value); }
remove
{
int index = handlers.LastIndexOf(value);
if (index != -1)
{
handlers.RemoveAt(index);
}
}
}
These two approaches are not quite equivalent - if you subscribe with a delegate instance which is already a compound delegate, GetInvocationList will flatten it but the List approach won't. I'd probably go with GetInvocationList myself.
Now, the second issue is how to detect when the meal has provided. Again, there are two approaches. The first is to use the normal event handler pattern, making the EventArgs subclass in question mutable. This is the approach that HandledEventArgs takes. The second is to break the normal event pattern, and use a delegate that returns a value which can be used to indicate success or failure (and possibly other information). This is the approach that ResolveEventHandler takes. Either way, you execute the delegates in turn until one of them satistfies your requirements. Here's a short example (not using events per se, but using a compound delegate):
using System;
public class Test
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Func<bool> x = FirstProvider;
x += SecondProvider;
x += ThirdProvider;
Execute(x);
}
static void Execute(Func<bool> providers)
{
foreach (Func<bool> provider in providers.GetInvocationList())
{
if (provider())
{
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
return;
}
}
Console.WriteLine("No provider succeeded");
}
static bool FirstProvider()
{
Console.WriteLine("First provider returning false");
return false;
}
static bool SecondProvider()
{
Console.WriteLine("Second provider returning true");
return true;
}
static bool ThirdProvider()
{
Console.WriteLine("Third provider returning false");
return false;
}
}

Rather than publish a message "I'm hungry" to the providers, publish "I need to know current stock available". Then listen until you have enough information to make a request to the correct food service for what you need. This way the logic of what-makes-me-full is not spread amongst the food services... It seems cleaner to me.

Message passing isn't baked into .NET directly, you need to implement your own message forwarding by hand. Fortunately, the "chain of responsiblity design pattern" is designed specifically for the problem you're trying to solve, namely forwarding a message down a chain until someone can handle it.
Useful resources:
Chain of Responsibility on Wikipedia
C# implementation on DoFactory.com

I'm not sure if you really need a priority event. Anyways, let's suppose we want to code that just for fun.
The .NET Framework has no support for such a peculiar construct. Let me show one possible approach to implement it.
The first step would be to create custom store for event delegates (like described here);
Internally, the custom event store could work like a priority queue;
The specific EventArgs used would be HandledEventArgs (or a subclass of it). This would allow the event provider to stop calling handlers after one of them sets the event as Handled;
The next step is the hardest. How to say to tell the event provider what is the priority of the event handler that is being added?
Let me clarify the problem. Usually, the adding of a handler is like this:
eater.GotHungry += mealsService.Someone_GotHungry;
eater.GotHungry += juiceService.Someone_GotHungry;
eater.GotHungry += fruitService.Someone_GotHungry;
The += operator will only receive an delegate. It's not possible to pass a second priority parameter. There might be several possible solutions for this problem. One would be to define the priority in a custom attribute set at the event handler method. A scond approach is discussed in the question.
Compared to the chain of responsibility implementation at dofactory.com, this approach has some advantages. First, the handlers (your food services) do not need to know each other. Also, handlers can be added and remove at any time dynamically. Of course, you could implement a variation of a chain of responsibility that has this advantages too.

I don't think delegates are the proper solution to your problem. Delegates are a low-level service provided by C# for relatively tightly coupled events between components. If I understand your question properly (It is worded a little oddly, so I am not sure I clearly understand your problem), then I think what you need is a mediated consumer/provider.
Rather than having your consumers directly consume the meal, juice, and fruit providers, have them request a food item from a central mediator. The mediator would then be responsible for determining what is available and what should be provided to the consumer. The mediator would be a subscriber to events published by all three services. Whenever stock is added/updated in the Meal, Juice, or Fruit services, they would publish their current stock to all subscribers. The mediator, being a subscriber, would track current stock reductions on its own, and be able to determine for itself whether to send a meal, juice, or fruit to a food consumer when a get food request is made.
For example:
|---------- (GetFoodResponse) ----------------
V |
FoodConsumer ---- (GetFoodRequest) ------> FoodProvider <-----> [ Local Stock Data ]
^
|
|
MealService ---- (PublishStockMessage) ----------|
^
JuiceService --- (PublishStockMessage) ----------|
^
FruitService --- (PublishStockMessage) ----------|
The benefits of such a solution are that you reduce coupling, properly segregate responsibility, and solve your problem. For one, your consumers only need to consume a single service...the FoodProvider. The FoodProvider subscribes to publications from the other three services, and is responsible for determining what food to provide to a consumer. The three food services are not responsible for anything related to the hunger of your food consumers, they are only responsible for providing food and tracking the stock of the food they provide. You also gain the ability to distribute the various components. Your consumers, the food provider, and each of the three food services can all be hosted on different physical machines if required.
However, to achieve the above benefits, your solution becomes more complex. You have more parts, and they need to be connected to each other properly. You have to publish and subscribe to messages, which requires some kind of supporting infrastructure (WCF, MSMQ, some third party ESB, custom solution, etc.) You also have duplication of data, since the food provider tracks stock on its own in addition to each of the food services, which could lead to discontinuity in available stock. This can be mitigated if you manage stock updated properly, but that would also increase complexity.
If you can handle the additional complexity, ultimately, a solution like this would more flexible and adaptable than a more tightly connected solution that uses components and C# events in a local-deployment-only scenario (as in your original example.)

I am having a bit of trouble understanding your analogy here, which sounds like you're obscuring the actual intent of the software, but I think I have done something like what you are describing.
In my case the software was telemarketing software and each of the telemarketers had a calling queue. When that queue raises the event signifying that it is nearing empty, the program will grab a list of available people to call, and then pass them through a chain of responsibility which pushes the available call into the telemarketer's queue like so:
Each element in the chain acts as a priority filter: the first link in the chain will grab all of the people who have never been called before, and if it finishes (ie. went through all of the people who have never been called) without filling up the queue, it will pass the remaining list of people to call to the next link in the chain - which will apply another filter/search. This continues until the last link in the chain which just fires off an e-mail to an administrator indicating that there are no available people to be called and a human needs to intervene quickly before the telemarketers have no work to do.

The purpose of delegates [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Where do I use delegates? [closed]
(8 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Duplicate:
Difference between events and delegates and its respective applications
What are the advantages of delegates?
Where do I use delegates?
I wonder what the purpose of delegates is. I haven't used them that much and can't really think of something.
In my courses, it's written that a delegate is a blue-print for all methods that comply with its signature.
Also, you can add multiple methods to one delegate, and then they'll be executed after eachother in the order they were added. Which is probably only usefull for methods that affect local variables or methodes that don't return any values.
I've read that C# implements Events as delegates, which is documented as being:
//Summary: Represents the method that
will handle an event that has no event
data.
//Parameters:
//sender: The source of the event.
//e: An System.EventArgs that contains no event data.
[Serializable]
[ComVisible(true)]
public delegate void EventHandler(object sender, EventArgs e);
Still, it's kinda confusing. Can someone give a good, usefull example of this concept?

Yeah,
You're almost there. A delegate refers to a method or function to be called. .NET uses the Events to say.. when someones presses this button, I want you to execute this piece of code.
For example, in the use of a GPS application:
public delegate void PositionReceivedEventHandler(double latitude, double longitude);
This says that the method must take two doubles as the inputs, and return void. When we come to defining an event:
public event PositionReceivedEventHandler PositionReceived;
This means that the PositionRecieved event, calls a method with the same definition as the
PositionReceivedEventHandler delegate we defined. So when you do
PositionRecieved += new PositionReceivedEventHandler(method_Name);
The method_Name must match the delegate, so that we know how to execute the method, what parameters it's expecting. If you use a Visual Studio designer to add some events to a button for example, it will all work on a delegate expecting an object and an EventArgs parameter.
Hope that helps some...

As you noted a delegate is a way to create a signature for an method call. There are many great examples of using delegates, but the one that really opened my mind is this example.
public delegate Duck GetDuckDelegate();
public GetDuckDelegate GiveMeTheDuckFactoryMethod(string type)
{
switch(type)
{
case "Rubber":
return new GetDuckDelegate(CreateRubberDuck);
case "Mallard":
return new GetDuckDelegate(CreateMallardDuck);
default:
return new GetDuckDelegate(CreateDefaultDuck);
}
}
public Duck CreateRubberDuck()
{
return new RubberDuck();
}
public Duck CreateMallardDuck()
{
return new MallardDuck();
}
public Duck CreateDefaultDuck()
{
return new Duck();
}
Then to use it
public static void Main() {
var getDuck = GiveMeTheDuckFactoryMethod("Rubber");
var duck = getDuck();
}
Arguably, the Factory pattern would be a better method for this, but I just thought up this example on the fly and thought it proved the point of how delegates can be treated as objects

Delegates allow you to pass methods around like values.
For example, .Net has a method called Array.ForEach that takes a delegate and an array, and calls the delegate on each element of the array.
Therefore, you could write,
int[] arr = new int[] { 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 };
Array.ForEach(arr, new Action<int>(Console.WriteLine));
This code will call Console.WriteLine for each number in the array.
There are many things you can do by making functions that take delegates, especially when combined with anonymous methods. For examples, look at LINQ.

Many people initially get confused with the real need for delegates and events. I was one of them and it took me some time to figure it out :-). Recently answered a similar query in ASP.NET forums and thought it would be good if I create a blog post on this topic! Here was the query:
"I was reading an example somewhere of a Bank Class that if the minimum balance is reached you need to inform the rest of the app that the min has reached, but can't we do that by just calling a normal method.
for example: lets say when we deduct some amount from the balance and if minimum reached then call some method to take some action, I am totally missing why do we need delegates and custom events here?"
Thing is in the Bank case, you can definitely call a method, but then it would be simple procedural programming, we need event based programming when we want our code to respond to some events generated by a system.
For eg.: think that windows OS is a system, and we are writing a code (in any language) where we want to capture an event like mouse_click(). Now how would our program know that a mouse click has occured? We can use low level code for it, but since OS is already handling low level code, its best to capture an event raised by the OS.
In other terms, the moment a mouse_click() happens the OS fires an event. The OS doesnt care who captures this event and uses it, it just sends out a notification. Then any code (like ours) can capture that event and use it accordingly. This saves us a lot of time to write code for the same ourselves. And other programs too can use the same event and handle it accordingly.
Similarly, the banking system can be huge, and many other outside applications might be accessing it. The banking system does not know how many such applications there are which need it, or are dependent on it, and how would they handle certain situations like when balance is low, so it simply fires an event whenever low balance occurs, and this event can be used by any other code, besides banking code itself.
Note that each susbcriber to that event can handle that event independently, for eg. the banking code might stop something from executing if balance is low, some other reporting app might send an email in such a case, or some ATM code can stop a particualr transaction and notify the user that balance is low.
Hope this clears things a bit!

I can provide you with an example using a web application architecture:
Generally, with a web application you can provide a front controller that receives requests from many clients. We could put all our methods within the front controller for dealing with the many different types of requests from the clients. However, this get a little cumbersome. Instead we can use delegates to encapsulate functionality for different requests. We could have:
Authentication Delegate
User Management Delegate
and so on. So it's a neat way to split up functionality into logical chunks - delegates. The Struts framework is based on this way of working (the ActionServlet and Action classes).

There are lots of excellent articles explaining delegates - here are some good ones:
Delegates and events
C# Delegates Explained
Delegates in C#

Delegates, to my understanding, provides a way of specializing the behavior of a class without subclassing it.
Some classes have complex generic behavior, but are still meant to be specialized. Think of a Window class in a GUI framework: A Window can propably do a lot on it's own, but you would most likely still want to specialize it in some way. In some frameworks, this is done via inheritance. A different way of doing it is with delegates. Say you want something to happen when the Window resizes: Your delegate class can then implement a method called onWindowResize (provided of course that the Window class supports this), which gets called whenever the Window resizes and is responsible for any specialized behavior when the Window resizes.
I'm not going to argue the merits of delegation over inheritance, but suffice it to say that there are many who feel that delegation is "cleaner" than inheritance.