I'm trying to create a class (in C#) that serves as an environment for my application.
I'm trying to make the class dynamic, and send it as a parameter to entities in my application. The problem is, that I want to be able to change the properties of this environment class (public setters), but at the same time I want the classes that receive the environment to be unable to use these setters.
I can't seem to find a good way to phrase my question (which I figure is a part of the reason I can't find anything like this on Google or msdn), but to put shortly, I want to create a class with setters that are public only for some of my objects and not for all.
I'm currently amusing the following idea:
Avoiding the public setters all together, and expose the private fields using event registration.
The class will register to events in a new third object (sent as a parameter to the constructor). The methods that will be registered by the environment are not much more then setters, and so triggering these events will "allow access" to the private fields.
I'd love some ideas (seeing as I feel that mine isn't all that great), or better yet some patterns I could make use of.
Thanks in advance
Isn't "internal" sufficient for what you need?
And you could move the setters into an interface as explicit implementation. Then they are hidden from the public interface and only accessible if you cast to the interface.
And if you want to make really sure that nobody else can call it you can add some parameter to these functions where you expect a certain token object which you only give to trusted classes.
void SetX(int value, object token)
{
if(token!=correctToken)
throw new ArgumentException("wrong token");
x=value;
}
You could create a proxy, and send that proxy to your entity classes.
class MyClass
{
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
}
class MyProxyClass
{
public MyProxyClass(MyClass myClass)
{
_myClass = myClass;
}
private MyClass _myClass;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return _myClass.MyProperty; }
}
}
You could try using Friend assemblies. That will allow only the assemblies you specify to have access to your privates (snicker).
Maybe i understood something not quite well, but i think Jon had a quite similar problem which he described here. Maybe this can help you.
How about
class Callee
{
public void SetX(TypeOfCaller caller, int value)
{
}
}
class TypeOfCaller
{
public void Do()
{
Callee instance;
//..
instance.SetX(this, 5);
}
}
Doing so; you can also use Visual Studio' Find References feature! In case you want multiple types of caller; you can either opt for class hierarchy or can simply have required overloads
Why not return clones of your protected objects instead of the actual objects? Solves the problem without adding any more complexity.
public class MyService
{
private List<MyObject> _protectedObjects = new List<MyObject>();
public MyObject GetItem(int id)
{
return (MyObject)_protectedObjects.First(i => i.Id == id).Clone();
}
}
public class MyObject : ICloneable
{
//[...]
public object Clone()
{
return MemberwiseClone();
}
}
Related
Here is a piece of code:
private class myClass
{
public static void Main()
{
}
}
'or'
private class myClass
{
public void method()
{
}
}
I know, first one will not work. And second one will.
But why first is not working? Is there any specific reason for it?
Actually looking for a solution in this perspective, thats why made it bold. Sorry
It would be meaningful in this scenario; you have a public class SomeClass, inside which you want to encapsulate some functionality that is only relevant to SomeClass. You could do this by declaring a private class (SomePrivateClass in my example) within SomeClass, as shown below.
public class SomeClass
{
private class SomePrivateClass
{
public void DoSomething()
{
}
}
// Only SomeClass has access to SomePrivateClass,
// and can access its public methods, properties etc
}
This holds true regardless of whether SomePrivateClass is static, or contains public static methods.
I would call this a nested class, and it is explored in another StackOverflow thread.
Richard Ev gave a use case of access inside a nested classes. Another use case for nested classes is private implementation of a public interface:
public class MySpecialCollection<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return new MySpecialEnumerator(...);
}
private class MySpecialEnumerator : IEnumerator<T>
{
public bool MoveNext() { ... }
public T Current
{
get { return ...; }
}
// etc...
}
}
This allows one to provide a private (or protected or internal) implementation of a public interface or base class. The consumer need not know nor care about the concrete implementation. This can also be done without nested classes by having the MySpecialEnumerator class be internal, as you cannot have non-nested private classes.
The BCL uses non-public implementations extensively. For example, objects returned by LINQ operators are non-public classes that implement IEnumerable<T>.
This code is syntactically correct. But the big question is: is it useful, or at least usable in the context where you want to use it? Probably not, since the Main method must be in a public class.
Main() method is where application execution begin, so the reason you cannot compile your first class (with public static void Main()) is because you already have Main method somewhere else in your application. The compiler don't know where to begin execute your application.
Your application must have only one Main method to compile with default behavior otherwise you need to add /main option when you compile it.
Well my question is pretty self-explanatory. I have a class and I want to ensure that there is just 1 public constructor to this class. Moreover, I also want to ensure that the constuctor should have just 1 parameter. My class will be modified by many different developers, and I am looking for a way to ensure that they do not write any more constructors than are currently specified. Is it possible? If yes, then how?
Note, my class inherits from another class which currently does not have any constructor but it might have in the future. I don't know if this information will affect the answer or not but just thought of adding it.
Please help!
Thanks in advance!
You could consider writing a unit test to encode this design constraint. As long as the test isn't fiddled with, this will warn when the contraint is broken.
This would be a good case for a nice comment in your class detailing this constraint.
The following testing approach can be expanded to provide a test which could test derived types, rather than a single type. This approach is a type of static analysis, and removes the overhead that would be incurred by expensive runtime checking through reflection for instance. A test ensures that the design constraint is validated at build time, rather than at runtime which could be after code is released.
[Test]
public void myClass_must_have_one_single_paramter_ctor()
{
Type type = typeof(MyClass);
const BindingFlags Flags = (BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
ConstructorInfo[] ctors = type.GetConstructors(Flags);
Assert.AreEqual(1, ctors.Length, "Ctor count.");
ParameterInfo[] args = ctors[0].GetParameters();
Assert.AreEqual(1, args.Length, "Ctor parameter count.");
Assert.AreEqual(typeof(string), args[0].ParameterType, "Ctor parameter type.");
}
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass(string woo) {}
}
All classes have one constructor. If you don't specify one in the source code, the compiler will add an empty public constructor - the equivalent of:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
{
}
}
However if you specify at least one constructor in the source, only the constructors that you explicitly specify will be created, e.g. the following class has one public constructor that takes a single string parameter:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass(string myParameter)
{
...
}
}
In short, there's nothing special you need to do. If you only want one public constructor then ... just write one public constructor.
Only the person who codes the class can restrict the number and type of constructors.
So if that is you, then you can just code it the way you want.
This could be achieved using reflection. The only thing you need to take care is, the base class code shouldn't be accessible to or editable by developers.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Inherited obj = new Inherited("Alpha");
obj.test();
Inherited1 obj1 = new Inherited1(); //This will fail as there is no ctor with single param.
obj1.test();
}
}
public class MyBase
{
private static IList<string> ValidatedClasses = new List<string>();
public MyBase()
{
if(!ValidatedClasses.Contains(this.GetType().FullName) &&
!ValidateConstructorLogic())
{
throw new ApplicationException("Expected consturctor with single argument");
}
}
public bool ValidateConstructorLogic()
{
bool ValidConstFound = false;
foreach (var info in this.GetType().GetConstructors())
{
if(info.GetParameters().Length ==1)
{
lock (ValidatedClasses)
{
ValidatedClasses.Add(this.GetType().FullName);
}
ValidConstFound = true;
}
}
return ValidConstFound;
}
}
public class Inherited:MyBase
{
public Inherited(string test)
{
Console.WriteLine("Ctor");
}
public void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("TEST called");
}
}
public class Inherited1 : MyBase
{
public void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("TEST called");
}
}
You could use FxCop to validate your code against a set of predefined rules. I beleive this might be the apt solution to your problem. If you need help on creating custom FxCop rules, please refer this article.
Constructors are not inherited from base classes.
Your class will have only the constructors that you write, except for (as others have pointed out) a default public constructor that is generated by the compiler when you do not explicitly provide one of your own.
You could try using a nested builder, as described by Jon Skeet. Basically: You force the user to go through the builder which then calls the private class constructor. Since the class constructor is private, only the nested builder has access to it.
Alternative: Use static factory methods, make the constructor private & document your intentions.
Based on your comments, I don't think this is a "coding" problem. This is a policy & enforcement problem. You don't want other developers in your team creating more constructors.
In that case, go tell them that. Whoever is in charge of your source code repository can enforce it by rejecting changes that break the policy. Adding code to deal with this is just going to add runtime penalties to users for no reason.
I' ve been doing some programming lately and faced an issue which i found weird in c#. (at least for me)
public class Foo
{
//whatever
public class FooSpecificCollection : IList<Bar>
{
//implementation details
}
public FooSpecificCollection GetFoosStuff()
{
//return the collection
}
}
I want the consumer of Foo to be able to obtain a reference to FooSpecificCollection, even perform some operations on it. Maybe even set it to some other property of Foo or smth like that, but not To be able to CREATE an instance of this class. (the only class that should be able to instatiate this collection should be Foo.
Is my request really that far-fetched? I know that people way smarter defined c# but shouldn't there be such an option that a parent class can create a nested class instance but nobody else can't.
So far I created a solution to make an abstract class, or interface available through the property and implement a concrete private class that is not available anywhere else.
Is this a correct way to handle such a situation.?
The way embedded classes work is that they, as members of the outer class, get access to private members of that outer class. But not the other way around (what is what you want).
You can shield the constructor of FooSpecificCollection, but then the Factory has to be part of FooSpecificCollection itself. It could enlist the outer class:
public class Foo
{
public class FooSpecificCollection : List<Bar>
{
private FooSpecificCollection () { }
public static FooSpecificCollection GetFoosStuff()
{
var collection = new FooSpecificCollection ();
PrepareFooSpecificCollection(collection);
return collection;
}
}
private static void PrepareFooSpecificCollection(FooSpecificCollection collection)
{
//prepare the collection
}
}
Make your nested class private and make the return value of GetFoosStuff IList<Bar> instead of FooSpecificCollection.
Also, there's a good chance that deriving from List<Bar> is a bug.
If you are creating a library for others to use, you could make the constructor internal. Anyone outside the library will not be able to access it. If you are concerned about calling the constructor in your own project, just don't call it outside the parent class.
We create classes all the time which are not directly related to other classes, but the constructors don't have to be hidden from non-related classes. We (the programmers) know the the objects are not related so we don't ever create an instance of one in the other.
There is a solution but I don't think I would use it in my App :)
The idea is to have derived class from FooSpecific which is private and can be used only inside Foo but has public constructor, so Foo can create its instances.
public class Foo
{
//whatever
public class FooSpecific
{
// Protected contructor.
protected FooSpecific()
{
}
// All other code in here.
}
// Private helper class used for initialization.
private class FooSpecificInitHelper : FooSpecific
{
public FooSpecificInitHelper()
{
}
}
// Method in foo to create instaces of FooSpecific.
private FooSpecific CreateFooSpecific()
{
return new FooSpecificInitHelper();
}
}
No, and it doesn't really make sense.
I mean the whole point is so that you could potentially return other instances; but who will be deriving from that class anyway? Certainly not any other classes (Because that would be wrong, and imply it shouldn't be hidden inside the main class), so ...
As far as I know, in C#, there is no support for the "friend" key word as in C++. Is there an alternative way to design a class that could achieve this same end result without resorting to the un-available "friend" key-word?
For those who don't already know, the Friend key word allows the programmer to specify that a member of class "X" can be accessed and used only by class "Y". But to any other class the member appears private so they cannot be accessed. Class "Y" does not have to inherit from class "X".
No, there is no way to do that in C#.
One common workaround is to based the object for which you want to hide the constructor on an interface. You can then use the other object to construct a private, nested class implementing that interface, and return it via a Factory. This prevents the outside world from constructing your object directly, since they only ever see and interact with the interface.
public interface IMyObject
{
void DoSomething();
}
public class MyFriendClass
{
IMyObject GetObject() { return new MyObject(); }
class MyObject : IMyObject
{
public void DoSomething() { // ... Do something here
}
}
}
This is how I solved it. I'm not sure if it's the "right" way to do it, but it required minimal effort:
public abstract class X
{
// "friend" member
protected X()
{
}
// a bunch of stuff that I didn't feel like shadowing in an interface
}
public class Y
{
private X _x;
public Y()
{
_x = new ConstructibleX();
}
public X GetX()
{
return _x;
}
private class ConstructibleX : X
{
public ConstructibleX()
: base()
{}
}
}
No. The closest you have is an internal constructor, or a private constructor and a separate factory method (probably internal, so you haven't saved much).
What about just having it explicity implement an interface that is only visible to a certain class?
Something like:
public void IFreindOfX.Foo() //This is a method in the class that's a 'friend' to class X.
{
/* Do Stuff */
}
and then make sure IFriendOfX is visible to class X. In your X class you'd call the method by first casting X to IFriendOfX then calling Foo(). Another advantage is that is is fairly self documenting... that is, it's pretty close to having the friend keyword itself.
What about creating a private class? This does exactly what you seem to be describing. A member of class X can be accessed and used only by class Y, and to any other class it appears private, since, well, it is private:
public class Y
{
private class X { }
private X Friend;
public Y()
{
Friend = new X();
}
}
As far as I know, the Internal keyword is the closest thing in .NET. This question will shed more light on Internal: Internal in C#
The only thing I can think of that would even come close would be protected internal but that does not restrict it to a specific class. The only friending I'm aware of in c# is to make a friend assembly. Still does not restrict to a specific class.
The only thing I could think of to try and do it would be to do something like the following:
public class A
{
public A() {}
protected internal A(B b) {}
}
public class B
{
A myVersion;
public B()
{
myVersion = A(this);
}
}
The only other way I could think of would be to do some sort of Constructor Injection using reflection that is done inside of your friend class. The injection mechanism would allow you to limit it to what you want but could be very cumbersome. Take a look at something like Spring.Net for some injection capabilities.
As a workaround, I suppose you could create a conditional in your constructor that uses reflection.
For example, if Class1's constructor must be called by Class2:
public Class1()
{
string callingClass = new StackFrame(1).GetMethod().DeclaringType.Name;
if (callingClass != "Class2")
{
throw new ApplicationException(
string.Concat("Class1 constructor can not be called by ",
callingClass, "."));
}
}
EDIT:
Please note that I would never actually do this in "real" code. Technically it works, but it's pretty nasty. I just thought it was creative. :)
You can access private members/methods using Reflection.
Since it's got the design tag, I never particularly liked the friend keyword. It pierces encapsulation and that always felt dirty to me.
This has a bit of a smell. There are other plenty of other ways to achieve implementation hiding in C#. Limiting construction to only specific classes does not achieve all that much.
Could you please provide more information as to the purpose of this requirement? As already answered, internal is the closest match for limiting accessibility to the class. There are ways to build on top of that depending on the purpose.
I am currently designing a class library that will provide data to a web application graph rendering engine in C#. I am currently defining the interfaces of this library.
I have a IGraphData interface which I would like to cache using a service that accesses the cache, this is called IGraphDataCacheService and has set and get methods to add and retrieve IGraphData objects to and from the cache. the cache service will be a singleton.
I am confused about the correct way to implement this, so that there is only one cache service that can get and set generic IgraphData objects.
I came up with this:
interface IGraphDataCacheService {
IGraphData<object> Get(string identifier);
void Set(IGraphData<object> graphData);}
or this:
T Get<T, P>(string identifier) where T : IGraphData<P>;
void Set<T,P>(T graphData) where T : IGraphData<P>;
Can any one offer any advice help?
Thanks
Why don't you just make the interface generic instead?
interface ICacheService<T> {
T Get(string identifier);
void Set(T graphData);
}
if you wanted, you could type-constrain T to be of type IGraphData, or you could write it as:
interface IGraphDataCacheService<T> {
IGraphData<T> Get(string identifier);
void Set(IGraphData<T> graphData);
}
A few points:
I'd probably rename the interface methods to be more emblematic of a caching service. For example, Fetch and Store instead of Get and Set, which makes it sound like you're getting or setting the provider rather than the data to be cached.
Ensuring that there is only one cache is an implementation detail, not an interface one.
To implement a singleton, try something like:
public class SingletonCacheService : IGraphDataCacheService {
private static Singleton instance;
private Singleton() {}
// snip implementation of IGraphDataCacheService methods ...
public static Singleton Instance {
get {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Singleton();
}
return instance;
}
}
}
Note that this simple version isn't threadsafe.
Both alternatives seem plausible at a glance; my hunch is that you need to write some 'typical' client code to decide. e.g. Does the typical client 'know' the type of data associated with the identifier it's looking up? Good API design requires identifying the main use scenarios and using that to inform the design.
If I understand your question correctly you are wanting to treat the generic types like they are the same, but in current .NET implementation you can't do this.
IGraphData<string> can't be passed as a IGraphData<object> they are actually different types even though string is an object, the generic types are not related and can't be cast or passed like they are the same.
If you control the IGraphData interface you can create a IGraphData interface and derive IGraphData from it and use IGraphData to access the cache. It just depends on how you are using it and what you have the control over.
You can do what you want in C# 4.0. There is an article about it here
You can't ensure there's only a single instance implementing an interface. However, you can make a class (e.g. GraphDataCacheServiceImpl) implementing the interface a singleton by sealing it and providing only a getter property, with the object created as a static variable from a private constructor. See the below. As far as generics, it's not exactly clear what you're seeking to accomplish. But I would guess the below is close to what you want.
interface IGraphDataCacheService<T> {
IGraphData<T> Get(string identifier);
void Set(IGraphData<T> graphData);
}
public sealed class GraphDataCacheServiceImpl<T> : IGraphDataCacheService<T>
{
private GraphDataCacheServiceImpl()
{
// ..
}
static GraphDataCacheServiceImpl()
{
Instance = new GraphDataCacheServiceImpl<T>();
}
public IGraphData<T> Get(string id)
{
return new GraphDataImpl<T>();
}
public void Set(IGraphData<T> graphData)
{
}
public static GraphDataCacheServiceImpl<T> Instance {get; private set;}
}