I'm currently developing a tiny technical Framework that is independant of any applications. Business code just refers to this Framework.
According this article : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5z57dxz2.aspx (exemple 2), we need to provide a delegate for the custom event.
Problem is, anyone can Invoke my handler (and then raise the event), even in my Business Code and that isn't logical for me, so what is the best way to raise a custom Event with a delegate that is only "internal" and not "public" ?
Thanks for help.
I am not sure if I get it right or not. I think that you feel like if you provide a public Delegate type for your custom event, anyone will be able to Raise that event.
Well, that is not true. Only the class that defines that custom event can raise it. If this is your issue, don't worry.
Not true. It's not allowed to invoke an event outside the class which the event belongs to. Others can only use += and -= operators to your event. Only in the class, you can invoke the event. That is a difference between an event and a normal delegate. That is:
public Data
{
public event EventHandler OnSave
public EventHandler OnLoad;
private void Load()
{
if (OnLoad!=null) OnLoad();
//other operations
}
private void Save()
{
if (OnSave!=null) OnSave();
//other operations
}
}
And outside the class:
Data data = new Data();
data.OnLoad += (s,e) => {};
data.OnSave += (s,e) => {};
data.OnLoad = (s,e)=>{};
//data.OnSave = (s,e)=>{}; //invalid
data.OnLoad();
//data.OnSave(); //invalid
The delegate is just a type declaration describing the "signature" of your event. This has to be public. To actually invoke your event you often implement a method named OnEvent (where you substitute Event with Click or Closed or whatever describes your event). This method should be private (or protected) in your class.
You cannot declare an event using a delegate that is less "visible" than the event.
Problem is, anyone can Invoke my handler (and then raise the event), even in my Business Code
That isn't true. You declare an event as follows:
public event FooEventHandler Foo;
The only thing that external code can do with the event is subscribe to it (+=), or unsubscribe from it (-=). It can't access the actual delegate, which is generated by the compiler as a private field. In other words, this code would be invalid :
SomeClass x = new SomeClass();
x.Foo(x, new FooEventArgs()); // compilation error here
Don't forget that an event is actually a pair of methods (add and remove). The compiler rewrites the event declaration to something along those lines:
private FooEventHandler _foo;
public event FooEventHandler Foo
{
add { _foo += value; }
remove { _foo -= value; }
}
(the generated code is actually a bit more complex, with some locking to ensure thread safety)
As you can see, the _foo field is private, so client code can't access it. Only the event's add and remove accessors are accessible.
One way of doing it:
Instead of public event, create a method that will manually subscribe your desired delegates, and store them in `private List _delegates' field.
Then, from the 'inside', call each of them when you desire.
public class Framework
{
public delegate void Method();
public void AttachEvent(Method M)
{
_methods.Add(M);
}
private List<Method> _methods;
private FireMethods()
{
_methods.Foreach(x=>x.Invoke());
}
}
Or, you can embrace 'by design' feature of the events that they aren't publicly Invoke()-able.
:)
Related
Imagine that Main.cs calls sub.cs which calls action.cs. action.cs raises and event which sub.cs subscribes to, however, sub.cs does not care about the event it is only main.cs that wants to know about this so sub.cs raises the event again so that main.cs can subscribe to it and discover that action.cs has raised the original event; which seems so cumbersome.
What alternatives are there to passing events on through a chain of method calls?
You can directly attach event exposed in Sub at event exposed in Action, of course event need to be exposed both in Sub and in Action:
class SubClass
{
public event EventHandler MyEvent
{
add
{
_action.MyEvent += value;
}
remove
{
_action.MyEvent -= value;
}
}
private ActionClass _action;
}
With this solution you still have to declare event twice but you do not chain method calls and you can omit event handler in SubClass.
There are alternatives, of course, but you may need to change your design and I don't have enough context to suggest anything. In general I'd start with simplest possible solution. If you need just to bubble one event this may be enough but if you need to expose many of them then you may consider to introduce a third object which exposes what you need and make accessible through SubClass from ActionClass, something like this (but please with better names):
public sealed class Notifications
{
public event EventHandler MyEvent;
internal void RaiseMyEvent(EventArgs e)
{
var myEvent = MyEvent;
if (myEvent != null)
myEvent(this, e);
}
}
class MyAction
{
public Notifications Notifications
{
get { return _notifications; }
}
// ...
}
class SubClass
{
public Notifications Notifications
{
get { return _action.Notifications; }
}
// ...
}
Note that this example is just a proof of concept.
You may want to use pub-sub with topics, for instance see https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-three-dotnet.html
(You don't need rabbitmq for that you can implement simple pub-sub yourself or take one from github/MSDN see: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752254(v=vs.110).aspx, https://github.com/upta/pubsub/blob/master/README.md)
You could use a callback instead of events.
You can add a callback function as additional parameter to the methods of method chain.
E.g. if the method is doSomething() replace it with doSomething(Action action) and Main.c calls this method with Sub.doSomething(() => ReactToTheEvent()); and Action.cs calls action(); insetad of raising the event.
Suppose I have a class say a viewmode class mvvm. Then there are some event handlers created for this vm. then it could be used by many others with different situation.
So if I have an instance of myvm, I want to detect if there is any event handler hooked up and want to release it for memory issue.
What's the generic way to do this out of myvm, for example, I may not have the source code of myvm?
Events are designed such that code outside the class that declared them cannot get access to the underlying delegate. For example, according to Section "10.8 Events" in the C# Language specification (emphasis mine):
In an operation of the form x += y or x -= y, when x is an event and
the reference takes place outside the type that contains the
declaration of x, the result of the operation has type void (as
opposed to having the type of x, with the value of x after the
assignment). This rule prohibits external code from indirectly
examining the underlying delegate of an event.
Therefore, finding out what is subscribed to the event outside the class may be, at best, a "work around".
If you have access to the source of the class containing the event and you want to keep track of delegates hooked up to an event, implement the add and remove keyword in the event definition and manually keep track of them in a Dictionary.
If I understand you correctly.
This class wraps the unknown myvm class which I use SocketAsyncEventArgs to illustrate, cos obviously we don't have the source code for SocketAsyncEventArgs class.
And I wrapped the Completed event of SocketAsyncEventArgs class. When that event is triggered, _instance_Completed will be fired, then _myvm event will be fired. So what we need to do is subscribe/unsubscribe _myvm event.
Then I leave an event for people to subscribe/unsubscribe _myvm event, as subscribing/unsubscribing, the delegates are stored into a List therefore you can clear the
by call the ClearEvents() method.
Hope it will help.
public class WrapperClass
{
private EventHandler<SocketAsyncEventArgs> _myEvent;
private SocketAsyncEventArgs _myvm;
private List<Delegate> delegates;
public WrapperClass()
{
delegates = new List<Delegate>();
}
public void SetInstance(SocketAsyncEventArgs myvm)
{
_myvm = myvm;
_myvm.Completed += new EventHandler<SocketAsyncEventArgs>(_instance_Completed);
}
private void _instance_Completed(object sender, SocketAsyncEventArgs e)
{
if (_myEvent != null)
{
_myEvent(sender, e);
}
}
public event EventHandler<SocketAsyncEventArgs> myEvent
{
add
{
delegates.Add(value);
_myEvent = (EventHandler<SocketAsyncEventArgs>)Delegate.Combine(_myEvent, value);
}
remove
{
delegates.Remove(value);
_myEvent = (EventHandler<SocketAsyncEventArgs>)Delegate.Remove(_myEvent, value);
}
}
public void ClearEvents()
{
foreach (var d in delegates)
{
_myEvent = (EventHandler<SocketAsyncEventArgs>)Delegate.Remove(_myEvent, d);
}
}
}
As I understand an Event is a way for a class to allow clients to give it delegates to methods that should be called when the event occurs. When the event occurs, the delegate(s) given to it by its clients are invoked.
But as demonstrated in following code above said functionality can also be achieved by delegate only i.e. without using delegate.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ListWithChangedEvent lwce = new ListWithChangedEvent();
lwce.delegateVariable = DelegateTestMethod;
lwce.Add("test");
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static void DelegateTestMethod(object sender, object e)
{
}
}
public delegate void ChangedEventHandler(object sender, object e);
public class ListWithChangedEvent : System.Collections.ArrayList
{
public override int Add(object value)
{
int result = base.Add(value);
if (delegateVariable != null)
delegateVariable(this, "");
return result;
}
public ChangedEventHandler delegateVariable;
}
So, I was wondering what additional functionality does Events provide?
So, I was wondering what additional functionality does Events provide?
Events provide two distinctly different advantages over exposing a public delegate:
You're making the intent very clear. A delegate is typically exposed publically for a very different purpose than an "event" - by using an event, you're very clearly saying "this is something that will get raised at a specific point". Exposing a delegate typically has a different meaning - most often a delegate in a public API is a required input for that API - ie: something that is used directly by the method, not an optional notification mechanism triggered by the method.
Events, technically, are not necessarily just a delegate. An event actually has the option of allowing custom add and remove accessors, which allow you to manually determine what happens when a subscriber subscribes or unsubscribes from the event. For example, many implementations of ICommand.CanExecuteChanged actually don't include their own delegate at all - but silently route to the CommandManager's RequerySuggested event.
Your example allows for a single delegate to be called. The event is a collection of delegates, meaning you can += and -= your heart away (even during event invocation).
event is just the access approach to the handler.
it wont allow you to do myHandler=myFunc;
only using += ( from outer class)
it was made that if another dumb use your code - so he wont destroy your chain by using = so you allow him only += or -=
I have declared a generic event handler
public delegate void EventHandler();
to which I have added the extension method 'RaiseEvent':
public static void RaiseEvent(this EventHandler self) {
if (self != null) self.Invoke();
}
When I define the event using the typical syntax
public event EventHandler TypicalEvent;
then I can call use the extension method without problems:
TypicalEvent.RaiseEvent();
But when I define the event with explicit add/remove syntax
private EventHandler _explicitEvent;
public event EventHandler ExplicitEvent {
add { _explicitEvent += value; }
remove { _explicitEvent -= value; }
}
then the extension method does not exist on the event defined with explicit add/remove syntax:
ExplicitEvent.RaiseEvent(); //RaiseEvent() does not exist on the event for some reason
And when I hover over to event to see the reason it says:
The event 'ExplicitEvent' can only
appear on the left hand side of += or
-=
Why should an event defined using the typical syntax be different from an event defined using the explicit add/remove syntax and why extension methods do not work on the latter?
EDIT: I found I can work around it by using the private event handler directly:
_explicitEvent.RaiseEvent();
But I still don't understand why I cannot use the event directly like the event defined using the typical syntax. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
When you create a "field-like" event, like this:
public event EventHandler Foo;
the compiler generates a field and an event. Within the source code of the class which declares the event, any time you refer to Foo the compiler understand that you're referring to the field. However, the field is private, so any time you refer to Foo from other classes, it refers to the event (and therefore the add/remove code).
If you declare your own explicit add/remove code, you don't get an auto-generated field. So, you've only got an event, and you can't raise an event directly in C# - you can only invoke a delegate instance. An event isn't a delegate instance, it's just an add/remove pair.
Now, your code contained this:
public EventHandler TypicalEvent;
This is slightly different still - it wasn't declaring an event at all - it was declaring a public field of the delegate type EventHandler. Anyone can invoke that, because the value is just a delegate instance. It's important to understand the difference between a field and an event. You should never write this kind of code, just as I'm sure you don't normally have public fields of other types such as string and int. Unfortunately it's an easy typo to make, and a relatively hard one to stop. You'd only spot it by noticing that the compiler was allowing you to assign or use the value from another class.
See my article on events and delegates for more information.
Because you can do this (it's non-real-world sample, but it "works"):
private EventHandler _explicitEvent_A;
private EventHandler _explicitEvent_B;
private bool flag;
public event EventHandler ExplicitEvent {
add {
if ( flag = !flag ) { _explicitEvent_A += value; /* or do anything else */ }
else { _explicitEvent_B += value; /* or do anything else */ }
}
remove {
if ( flag = !flag ) { _explicitEvent_A -= value; /* or do anything else */ }
else { _explicitEvent_B -= value; /* or do anything else */ }
}
}
How can the compiler know what it should do with "ExplicitEvent.RaiseEvent();"?
Answer: It can't.
The "ExplicitEvent.RaiseEvent();" is only syntax sugar, which can be predicated only if the event is implicitly implemented.
That's because you're not looking at it right.
The logic is the same as in Properties.
Once you've set the add/remove it's no longer an actual event, but a wrapper to expose the actual event (events can only be triggered from inside the class itself, so you always have access locally to the real event).
private EventHandler _explicitEvent;
public event EventHandler ExplicitEvent {
add { _explicitEvent += value; }
remove { _explicitEvent -= value; }
}
private double seconds;
public double Hours
{
get { return seconds / 3600; }
set { seconds = value * 3600; }
}
In both cases the member with the get/set or add/remove property doesn't really contain any data. You need a "real" private member to contain the actual data.
The properties just allow you program extra logic when exposing the members to outside world.
A good example for WHY you'd want to do it, is to stop extra computation when it's not needed (no one is listening to the event).
For example, lets say the events are triggered by a timer, and we don't want the timer to work if no-one is registered to the event:
private System.Windows.Forms.Timer timer = new System.Windows.Forms.Timer();
private EventHandler _explicitEvent;
public event EventHandler ExplicitEvent
{
add
{
if (_explicitEvent == null) timer.Start();
_explicitEvent += value;
}
remove
{
_explicitEvent -= value;
if (_explicitEvent == null) timer.Stop();
}
}
You'd probably want to lock the add/remove with an object (an afterthought)...
The "plain" declaration for TypicalEvent does some compiler trickery. It creates an event metadata entry, add and remove methods and a backing field. When your code refers to TypicalEvent, the compiler translates it into a reference to the backing field; when external code refers to TypicalEvent (using += and -=), the compiler translates it into a reference to the add or remove method.
The "explicit" declaration bypasses this compiler trickery. You are spelling out the add and remove methods and the backing field: indeed, as TcKs points out, there may not even be a backing field (this is a common reason for using the explicit form: see e.g. events in System.Windows.Forms.Control). Therefore the compiler can no longer quietly translate the reference to TypicalEvent into a reference to the backing field: if you want the backing field, the actual delegate object, you have to reference the backing field directly:
_explicitEvent.RaiseEvent()
I started with a question, and in typing the question, found the answer, but instead of deleting, I thought it might be helpful to A) get confirmation, and B) help others.
If I have an event, and several places in the application add listeners, what is the best way to remove all listeners at once? For example, I can ...
myPage.OnPageOpened += OpenPage;
and later in my code ...
myPage.OnPageOpened -= OpenPage;
But what if I have unknown 3rd party subscribers and I want to press a magic Reset button that clears everything and starts from scratch?
You can use += and -= operators anywhere against the EventHandler, because the operator overloads are public. The = overloaded operator is private it can only be called in the defining class.
So in the defining class I can use this to clear my EventHandler.
OnPageOpened = null;
And to expose that functionality, I could ...
public void ClearPageOpenedEvents() {
OnPageOpened = null;
}
Is that correct?
Yes, you are correct. The reason for this is that the compiler creates a private delegate object under the covers, like this:
private EventHandler pageOpened;
public EventHandler PageOpened
{
add { pageOpened += value; }
remove { pageOpened -= value; }
}
Inside your class, you have a reference to the private delegate instance, so that's why you can do the assignment. You definitely want to expose a method to clear the targets if that's functionality you need; you don't want to expose the delegate itself.
That's the way to do it, but how does something outside the class know that the class should drop all its event listeners? What if someone extending/using your code is expecting that event on an ongoing basis?
You can use the assignment operator on an event because that's how adding and removing events work. Using Reflector shines a lot of light on how events are done in C#.
Given the simple class of
public class MyClass
{
public event EventHandler MyEvent;
}
The following code is produced when compiled
public class MyClass
{
private EventHandler MyEvent;
public event EventHandler MyEvent;
}
So when you are referencing MyEvent you are referring to the private delegate variable MyEvent. The += and -= operators are "special" (because they aren't operators) and get changed into calling the add and remove methods that are created for the event (which use the assignment operator themselves).
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)]
public void add_MyEvent(EventHandler value)
{
this.MyEvent = (EventHandler) Delegate.Combine(this.MyEvent, value);
}
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)]
public void remove_MyEvent(EventHandler value)
{
this.MyEvent = (EventHandler) Delegate.Remove(this.MyEvent, value);
}