Develop Reference

Push new values after creation

Reading IntroToRx website, it discourages using of Subject in favour of Observable.Create helper method.
As I can see, the OnNext method can be called only into subscribe method, because it's the only part I have access Observer object.
What if I would like to push new values after it's creation?
Am I "forced" to use a Subject?

If you are just exploring Rx, go for it - use Subjects, go nuts, see how they work, discover their pros and cons for yourself, then come back here and read the questions discussing why Subject is frowned upon.
Subjects offer a much easier way of "quickly bootstrapping" ideas and complicated Rx scenarios without needing to replicate the actual source conditions.
That said, they do inject state into what is kinda-sorta-supposed-to-be a stateless chain of operations, so be careful not to rely on them.
So, to sum up: if you are trying to generate sequences to test/learn how rx works or how you might make query X, use those subjects. If you find yourself using them intra-query, there is a CHANCE there is a better way.
Edit: realized I missed something:
Also, you ask if there is another way of raising stream events post-creation...the answer is yes; you might declare a stream via Create or Return or Generate that returns any old IObservable-based object that you define, which can also expose methods to inject events...or heck, have a lambda that spins a thread that checks a shared list that is routed to the return stream....I guess what I'm saying is that the possibilities are endless. There are something like a dozen "create a sequence of events" methods declared on Observable - try them all!
EDIT 2:
An example? Sure, let's throw something together using Observable.Create that mimics a really inefficient Subject:
var running = true;
var values = new ConcurrentQueue<int>();
var query = Observable.Create<int>(obs =>
{
var body = Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>
{
while(running)
{
int nextValue;
if(values.TryDequeue(out nextValue))
{
obs.OnNext(nextValue);
}
Thread.Yield();
}
});
return Disposable.Create(() =>
{
try
{
running = false;
body.Wait();
obs.OnCompleted();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
obs.OnError(ex);
}
});
});
using(query.Subscribe(Console.WriteLine))
{
values.Enqueue(1);
values.Enqueue(2);
values.Enqueue(3);
values.Enqueue(4);
Console.ReadLine();
}
Note that this is just quick-and-extremely-dirty example code. :)

It depends on what you are trying to do. There are cases for Subjects, but just not as many as one thinks when they first start out with Rx.
How will the new data enter your sequence? Will it be from another event? Perhaps a message from a communications framework? Maybe polling a file?
Depending on these answers you will normally find that you already have some sort of event source, and you are just converting to Rx from another pattern (Events, Polling, Callbacks etc...)
You also don't just have to use Observable.Create. You could use Observable.Timer/Interval to set up a polling sequence, Observable.FromEventPattern to leverage an existing Event, Observable.Start for a one off async task style calculation etc...
As Rx (or even Linq) can be quite abstract, asking abstract questions can often lead to very broad answers. If you give an indication of a problem you are trying to solve, that might help provide you with an even better answer.

If you are receiving data from external device, you have no intention of signaling errors with IObserver.OnError (you assume your stream is endless and/or any problems with communications are within message itself), you poll at some rate, the only problem with Subject is that you will probably start polling this device even before anyone subscribes (but added benefit is that handling your state is pretty obvious, you created one object, it opened COM port, it communicates and publishes values)
Using Observable.Create or Observable.Timer/Interval might be better - but laziness is main reason, you will manage state anyway. And you will probably need to use Publish().RefCount() to prevent second subscription from opening port.

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.

Getting my head around object oriented programming

I am entry level .Net developer and using it to develop web sites. I started with classic asp and last year jumped on the ship with a short C# book.
As I developed I learned more and started to see that coming from classic asp I always used C# like scripting language.
For example in my last project I needed to encode video on the webserver and wrote a code like
public class Encoder
{
Public static bool Encode(string videopath) {
...snip...
return true;
}
}
While searching samples related to my project I’ve seen people doing this
public class Encoder
{
Public static Encode(string videopath) {
EncodedVideo encoded = new EncodedVideo();
...snip...
encoded.EncodedVideoPath = outputFile;
encoded.Success = true;
...snip...
}
}
public class EncodedVideo
{
public string EncodedVideoPath { get; set; }
public bool Success { get; set; }
}
As I understand second example is more object oriented but I don’t see the point of using EncodedVideo object.
Am I doing something wrong? Does it really necessary to use this sort of code in a web app?

someone once explained OO to me as a a soda can.
A Soda can is an object, an object has many properties. And many methods. For example..
SodaCan.Drink();
SodaCan.Crush();
SocaCan.PourSomeForMyHomies();
etc...
The purpose of OO Design is theoretically to write a line of code once, and have abstraction between objects.
This means that Coder.Consume(SodaCan.contents); is relative to your question.
An encoded video is not the same thing as an encoder. An encoder returns an encoded video. and encoded video may use an encoder but they are two seperate objects. because they are two different entities serving different functions, they simply work together.
Much like me consuming a soda can does not mean that I am a soda can.

Neither example is really complete enough to evaluate. The second example seems to be more complex than the first, but without knowing how it will be used it's difficult to tell.
Object Oriented design is at it's best when it allows you to either:
1) Keep related information and/or functions together (instead of using parallel arrays or the like).
Or
2) Take advantage of inheritance and interface implementation.
Your second example MIGHT be keeping the data together better, if it returns the EncodedVideo object AND the success or failure of the method needs to be kept track of after the fact. In this case you would be replacing a combination of a boolean "success" variable and a path with a single object, clearly documenting the relation of the two pieces of data.
Another possibility not touched on by either example is using inheritance to better organize the encoding process. You could have a single base class that handles the "grunt work" of opening the file, copying the data, etc. and then inherit from that class for each different type of encoding you need to perform. In this case much of your code can be written directly against the base class, without needing to worry about what kind of encoding is actually being performed.

Actually the first looks better to me, but shouldn't return anything (or return an encoded video object).
Usually we assume methods complete successfully without exceptional errors - if exceptional errors are encountered, we throw an exception.

Object oriented programming is fundamentally about organization. You can program in an OO way even without an OO language like C#. By grouping related functions and data together, it is easier to deal with increasingly complex projects.

You aren't necessarily doing something wrong. The question of what paradigm works best is highly debatable and isn't likely to have a clear winner as there are so many different ways to measure "good" code,e.g. maintainable, scalable, performance, re-usable, modular, etc.
It isn't necessary, but it can be useful in some cases. Take a look at various MVC examples to see OO code. Generally, OO code has the advantage of being re-usable so that what was written for one application can be used for others over and over again. For example, look at log4net for example of a logging framework that many people use.

The way your structure an OO program--which objects you use and how you arrange them--really depends on many factors: the age of the project, the overall size of the project, complexity of the problem, and a bit for just personal taste.
The best advice I can think of that will wrap all the reasons for OO into one quick lesson is something I picked up learning design patterns: "Encapsulate the parts that change." The value of OO is to reuse elements that will be repeated without writing additional code. But obviously you only care to "wrap up" code into objects if it will actually be reused or modified in the future, thus you should figure out what is likely to change and make objects out of it.
In your example, the reason to use the second set up may be that you can reuse the EncodedVideo object else where in the program. Anytime you need to deal with EncodedVideo, you don't concern yourself with the "how do I encode and use video", you just use the object you have and trust it to handle the logic. It may also be valuable to encapsulate the encoding logic if it's complex, and likely to change. Then you isolate changes to just one place in the code, rather than many potential places where you might have used the object.
(Brief aside: The particular example you posted isn't valid C# code. In the second example, the static method has no return type, though I assume you meant to have it return the EncodedVideo object.)

This is a design question, so answer depends on what you need, meaning there's no right or wrong answer. First method is more simple, but in second case you incapsulate encoding logic in EncodedVideo class and you can easily change the logic (based on incoming video type, for instance) in your Encoder class.

I think the first example seems more simple, except I would avoid using statics whenever possible to increase testability.
public class Encoder
{
private string videoPath;
public Encoder(string videoPath) {
this.videoPath = videoPath;
}
public bool Encode() {
...snip...
return true;
}
}

Is OOP necessary? No.
Is OOP a good idea? Yes.
You're not necessarily doing something wrong. Maybe there's a better way, maybe not.
OOP, in general, promotes modularity, extensibility, and ease of maintenance. This goes for web applications, too.
In your specific Encoder/EncodedVideo example, I don't know if it makes sense to use two discrete objects to accomplish this task, because it depends on a lot of things.
For example, is the data stored in EncodedVideo only ever used within the Encode() method? Then it might not make sense to use a separate object.
However, if other parts of the application need to know some of the information that's in EncodedVideo, such as the path or whether the status is successful, then it's good to have an EncodedVideo object that can be passed around in the rest of the application. In this case, Encode() could return an object of type EncodedVideo rather than a bool, making that data available to the rest of your app.

Unless you want to reuse the EncodedVideo class for something else, then (from what code you've given) I think your method is perfectly acceptable for this task. Unless there's unrelated functionality in EncodedVideo and the Encoder classes or it forms a massive lump of code that should be split down, then you're not really lowering the cohesion of your classes, which is fine. Assuming you don't need to reuse EncodedVideo and the classes are cohesive, by splitting them you're probably creating unnecessary classes and increasing coupling.
Remember: 1. the OO philosophy can be quite subjective and there's no single right answer, 2. you can always refactor later :p

Ab-using languages

Some time ago I had to address a certain C# design problem when I was implementing a JavaScript code-generation framework. One of the solutions I came with was using the “using” keyword in a totally different (hackish, if you please) way. I used it as a syntax sugar (well, originally it is one anyway) for building hierarchical code structure. Something that looked like this:
CodeBuilder cb = new CodeBuilder();
using(cb.Function("foo"))
{
// Generate some function code
cb.Add(someStatement);
cb.Add(someOtherStatement);
using(cb.While(someCondition))
{
cb.Add(someLoopStatement);
// Generate some more code
}
}
It is working because the Function and the While methods return IDisposable object, that, upon dispose, tells the builder to close the current scope. Such thing can be helpful for any tree-like structure that need to be hard-codded.
Do you think such “hacks” are justified? Because you can say that in C++, for example, many of the features such as templates and operator overloading get over-abused and this behavior is encouraged by many (look at boost for example). On the other side, you can say that many modern languages discourage such abuse and give you specific, much more restricted features.
My example is, of course, somewhat esoteric, but real. So what do you think about the specific hack and of the whole issue? Have you encountered similar dilemmas? How much abuse can you tolerate?

I think this is something that has blown over from languages like Ruby that have much more extensive mechanisms to let you create languages within your language (google for "dsl" or "domain specific languages" if you want to know more). C# is less flexible in this respect.
I think creating DSL's in this way is a good thing. It makes for more readable code. Using blocks can be a useful part of a DSL in C#. In this case I think there are better alternatives. The use of using is this case strays a bit too far from its original purpose. This can confuse the reader. I like Anton Gogolev's solution better for example.

Offtopic, but just take a look at how pretty this becomes with lambdas:
var codeBuilder = new CodeBuilder();
codeBuilder.DefineFunction("Foo", x =>
{
codeBuilder.While(condition, y =>
{
}
}

It would be better if the disposable object returned from cb.Function(name) was the object on which the statements should be added. That internally this function builder passed through the calls to private/internal functions on the CodeBuilder is fine, just that to public consumers the sequence is clear.
So long as the Dispose implementation would make the following code cause a runtime error.
CodeBuilder cb = new CodeBuilder();
var f = cb.Function("foo")
using(function)
{
// Generate some function code
f.Add(someStatement);
}
function.Add(something); // this should throw
Then the behaviour is intuitive and relatively reasonable and correct usage (below) encourages and prevents this happening
CodeBuilder cb = new CodeBuilder();
using(var function = cb.Function("foo"))
{
// Generate some function code
function.Add(someStatement);
}
I have to ask why you are using your own classes rather than the provided CodeDomProvider implementations though. (There are good reasons for this, notably that the current implementation lacks many of the c# 3.0 features) but since you don't mention it yourself...
Edit: I would second Anoton's suggest to use lamdas. The readability is much improved (and you have the option of allowing Expression Trees

If you go by the strictest definitions of IDisposable then this is an abuse. It's meant to be used as a method for releasing native resources in a deterministic fashion by a managed object.
The use of IDisposable has evolved to essentially be used by "any object which should have a deterministic lifetime". I'm not saying this is write or wrong but that's how many API's and users are choosing to use IDisposable. Given that definition it's not an abuse.

I wouldn't consider it terribly bad abuse, but I also wouldn't consider it good form because of the cognitive wall you're building for your maintenance developers. The using statement implies a certain class of lifetime management. This is fine in its usual uses and in slightly customized ones (like #heeen's reference to an RAII analogue), but those situations still keep the spirit of the using statement intact.
In your particular case, I might argue that a more functional approach like #Anton Gogolev's would be more in the spirit of the language as well as maintainable.
As to your primary question, I think each such hack must ultimately stand on its own merits as the "best" solution for a particular language in a particular situation. The definition of best is subjective, of course, but there are definitely times (especially when the external constraints of budgets and schedules are thrown into the mix) where a slightly more hackish approach is the only reasonable answer.

I often "abuse" using blocks. I think they provide a great way of defining scope. I have a whole series of objects that I use for capture and restoring state (e.g. of Combo boxes or the mouse pointer) during operations that may change the state. I also use them for creating and dropping database connections.
E.g.:
using(_cursorStack.ChangeCursor(System.Windows.Forms.Cursors.WaitCursor))
{
...
}

I wouldn't call it abuse. Looks more like a fancied up RAII technique to me. People have been using these for things like monitors.

C# Extension Methods - How far is too far?

Rails introduced some core extensions to Ruby like 3.days.from_now which returns, as you'd expect a date three days in the future. With extension methods in C# we can now do something similar:
static class Extensions
{
public static TimeSpan Days(this int i)
{
return new TimeSpan(i, 0, 0, 0, 0);
}
public static DateTime FromNow(this TimeSpan ts)
{
return DateTime.Now.Add(ts);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(
3.Days().FromNow()
);
}
}
Or how about:
static class Extensions
{
public static IEnumerable<int> To(this int from, int to)
{
return Enumerable.Range(from, to - from + 1);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
foreach (var i in 10.To(20))
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
}
Is this fundamentally wrong, or are there times when it is a good idea, like in a framework like Rails?

I like extension methods a lot but I do feel that when they are used outside of LINQ that they improve readability at the expense of maintainability.
Take 3.Days().FromNow() as an example. This is wonderfully expressive and anyone could read this code and tell you exactly what it does. That is a truly beautiful thing. As coders it is our joy to write code that is self-describing and expressive so that it requires almost no comments and is a pleasure to read. This code is paramount in that respect.
However, as coders we are also responsible to posterity, and those who come after us will spend most of their time trying to comprehend how this code works. We must be careful not to be so expressive that debugging our code requires leaping around amongst a myriad of extension methods.
Extension methods veil the "how" to better express the "what". I guess that makes them a double edged sword that is best used (like all things) in moderation.

First, my gut feeling: 3.Minutes.from_now looks totally cool, but does not demonstrate why extension methods are good. This also reflects my general view: cool, but I've never really missed them.
Question: Is 3.Minutes a timespan, or an angle?
Namespaces referenced through a using statement "normally" only affect types, now they suddenly decide what 3.Minutes means.
So the best is to "not let them escape".
All public extension methods in a likely-to-be-referenced namespace end up being "kind of global" - with all the potential problems associated with that. Keep them internal to your assembly, or put them into a separate namespace that is added to each file separately.

Personally I like int.To, I am ambivalent about int.Days, and I dislike TimeSpan.FromNow.
I dislike what I see as a bit of a fad for 'fluent' interfaces that let you write pseudo English code but do it by implementing methods with names that can be baffling in isolation.
For example, this doesnt read well to me:
TimeSpan.FromSeconds(4).FromNow()
Clearly, it's a subjective thing.

I agree with siz and lean conservative on this issue. Rails has that sort of stuff baked in, so it's not really that confusing ever. When you write your "days" and "fromnow" methods, there is no guarantee that your code is bug free. Also, you are adding a dependency to your code. If you put your extension methods in their own file, you need that file in every project. In a project, you need to include that project whenever you need it.
All that said, for really simple extension methods (like Jeff's usage of "left" or thatismatt's usage of days.fromnow above) that exist in other frameworks/worlds, I think it's ok. Anyone who is familiar with dates should understand what "3.Days().FromNow()" means.

I'm on the conservative side of the spectrum, at least for the time being, and am against extension methods. It is just syntactic sugar that, to me, is not that important. I think it can also be a nightmare for junior developers if they are new to C#. I'd rather encapsulate the extensions in my own objects or static methods.
If you are going to use them, just please don't overuse them to a point that you are making it convenient for yourself but messing with anyone else who touches your code. :-)

Each language has its own perspective on what a language should be. Rails and Ruby are designed with their own, very distinct opinions. PHP has clearly different opinions, as does C(++/#)...as does Visual Basic (though apparently we don't like their style).
The balance is having many, easily-read, built-in functions vs. the nitty-gritty control over everything. I wouldn't want SO many functions that you have to go to a lookup every time you want to do anything (and there's got to be a performance overhead to a bloated framework), but I personally love Rails, because what it has saves me a lot of time developing.
I guess what I'm saying here is that if you were designing a language, take a stance, go from there, and build in the functions you (or your target developer would) use most often.

My personal preference would be to use them sparingly for now and to wait to see how Microsoft and other big organizations use them. If we start seeing a lot of code, tutorials, and books use code like 3.Days().FromNow() it makes use it a lot. If only a small number of people use it, then you run the risk of having your code be overly difficult to maintain because not enough people are familiar with how extensions work.
On a related note, I wonder how the performance compares between a normal for loop and the foreach one? It would seem like the second method would involve a lot of extra work for the computer, but I'm not familiar enough with the concept to know for sure.