Develop Reference

How to instantiate a class as the interface that it derives from with constrained generic type parameter

There's the following interface which defines a packet.
public interface IPacket
{
int Size { get; }
}
There are two implementations, each with its own additional property.
public class FooPacket : IPacket
{
public int Size => 10;
public string FooProperty { get; set; }
}
public class BarPacket : IPacket
{
public int Size => 20;
public string BarProperty { get; set; }
}
The above is library code I have no control over. I want to create a handler for packets
public interface IPacketHandler<T> where T : IPacket
{
void HandlePacket(T packet) ;
}
and create two implementations for the concrete packets.
public class FooPacketHandler : IPacketHandler<FooPacket>
{
public void HandlePacket(FooPacket packet) { /* some logic that accesses FooProperty */ }
}
public class BarPacketHandler : IPacketHandler<BarPacket>
{
public void HandlePacket(BarPacket packet) { /* some logic that accesses BarProperty */ }
}
I'd like to inject a list of packet handlers into a class that manages packet handling so that it can be extended in the future with additional packet handlers.
public class PacketHandlerManager
{
public PacketHandlerManager(IEnumerable<IPacketHandler<IPacket>> packetHandlers)
{
}
}
The trouble I'm having is when creating the injected parameter. I cannot do
var packetHandlers = new List<IPacketHandler<IPacket>>
{
new FooPacketHandler(),
new BarPacketHandler()
};
because I cannot create an instance like so:
IPacketHandler<IPacket> packetHandler = new FooPacketHandler();
I get the error Cannot implicitly convert type 'FooPacketHandler' to 'IPacketHandler<IPacket>. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?)
I had a look at a similar question: Casting generic type with interface constraint. In that question, OP didn't show the members of the interface, only the definition of it from a generics point of view. From what I can see, if my interface didn't use the generic type parameter as an input, I could make it covariant using the out keyword, but that doesn't apply here.
How do I achieve making manager adhere to the open-closed principle? Is my only recourse changing the interface definition to
public interface IPacketHandler
{
void HandlePacket(IPacket packet);
}
and then casting to a particular packet in the implementation?

The core of the issue is that ultimately you would call your handler passing a concrete packet (of a concrete type) to it as an argument, even though you hide the argument behind IPacket.
Somehow then, trying to call the HandlePacket( FooPacket ) with BarPacket argument would have to fail, the only question is when/where it fails.
As you already noticed, introducing the generic parameter to the packet handler makes it fail in the compile time and there is no easy workaround over it.
Your idea to drop the generic parameter, i.e. to have
public interface IPacketHandler
{
void HandlePacket(IPacket packet);
}
is a possible solution. It however pushes the possible failure to the runtime, where you now have to check if a handler is called with inappropriate argument.
What you could also do is to make this runtime check more explicit by introducing a contract for it:
public interface IPacketHandler
{
bool CanHandlePacket(IPacket packet);
void HandlePacket(IPacket packet);
}
This makes it cleaner for the consumer to safely call HandlePacket - assuming they get a positive result from calling CanHandlePacket before.
For example, a possible naive loop over a list of packets and calling your handlers would become
foreach ( var packet in _packets )
foreach ( var handler in _handlers )
if ( handler.CanHandlePacket(packet) )
handler.HandlePacket(packet);

You can solve this with a little bit of reflection.
Firstly, for convenience (and to help slightly with type-safety), introduce a "Tag" interface which all your IPacketHandler<T> interfaces will implement:
public interface IPacketHandlerTag // "Tag" interface.
{
}
This is not really necessary, but it means you can use IEnumerable<IPacketHandlerTag> instead of IEnumerable<object> later on, which does make things a little more obvious.
Then your IPacketHandler<T> interface becomes:
public interface IPacketHandler<in T> : IPacketHandlerTag where T : IPacket
{
void HandlePacket(T packet);
}
Now you can write a PacketHandlerManager that uses reflection to pick out the method to use to handle a packet, and add it to a dictionary like so:
public class PacketHandlerManager
{
public PacketHandlerManager(IEnumerable<IPacketHandlerTag> packetHandlers)
{
foreach (var packetHandler in packetHandlers)
{
bool appropriateMethodFound = false;
var handlerType = packetHandler.GetType();
var allMethods = handlerType.GetMethods(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
foreach (var method in allMethods.Where(m => m.Name == "HandlePacket"))
{
var args = method.GetParameters();
if (args.Length == 1 && typeof(IPacket).IsAssignableFrom(args[0].ParameterType))
{
_handlers.Add(args[0].ParameterType, item => method.Invoke(packetHandler, new object[]{item}));
appropriateMethodFound = true;
}
}
if (!appropriateMethodFound)
throw new InvalidOperationException("No appropriate HandlePacket() method found for type " + handlerType.FullName);
}
}
public void HandlePacket(IPacket packet)
{
if (_handlers.TryGetValue(packet.GetType(), out var handler))
{
handler(packet);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("No handler found for packet type " + packet.GetType().FullName);
}
}
readonly Dictionary<Type, Action<IPacket>> _handlers = new Dictionary<Type, Action<IPacket>>();
}
If a packet handler passed to the PacketHandlerManager constructor does not implement a method called HandlePacket with a single argument that is assignable from IPacket, it will throw an InvalidOperationException.
For example, attempting to use an instance of the following class would cause the constructor to throw:
public class BadPacketHandler: IPacketHandlerTag
{
public void HandlePacket(string packet)
{
Console.WriteLine("Handling string");
}
}
Now you can call use it thusly:
var packetHandlers = new List<IPacketHandlerTag>
{
new FooPacketHandler(),
new BarPacketHandler()
};
var manager = new PacketHandlerManager(packetHandlers);
var foo = new FooPacket();
var bar = new BarPacket();
var baz = new BazPacket();
manager.HandlePacket(foo);
manager.HandlePacket(bar);
manager.HandlePacket(baz);
Putting it all together into a compilable console app:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
public interface IPacket
{
int Size { get; }
}
public class FooPacket : IPacket
{
public int Size => 10;
public string FooProperty { get; set; }
}
public class BarPacket : IPacket
{
public int Size => 20;
public string BarProperty { get; set; }
}
public class BazPacket : IPacket
{
public int Size => 20;
public string BazProperty { get; set; }
}
public interface IPacketHandlerTag // "Tag" interface.
{
}
public interface IPacketHandler<in T> : IPacketHandlerTag where T : IPacket
{
void HandlePacket(T packet);
}
public class FooPacketHandler : IPacketHandler<FooPacket>
{
public void HandlePacket(FooPacket packet)
{
Console.WriteLine("Handling FooPacket");
}
}
public class BarPacketHandler : IPacketHandler<BarPacket>
{
public void HandlePacket(BarPacket packet)
{
Console.WriteLine("Handling BarPacket");
}
}
public class PacketHandlerManager
{
public PacketHandlerManager(IEnumerable<IPacketHandlerTag> packetHandlers)
{
foreach (var packetHandler in packetHandlers)
{
bool appropriateMethodFound = false;
var handlerType = packetHandler.GetType();
var allMethods = handlerType.GetMethods(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
foreach (var method in allMethods.Where(m => m.Name == "HandlePacket"))
{
var args = method.GetParameters();
if (args.Length == 1 && typeof(IPacket).IsAssignableFrom(args[0].ParameterType))
{
_handlers.Add(args[0].ParameterType, item => method.Invoke(packetHandler, new object[]{item}));
appropriateMethodFound = true;
}
}
if (!appropriateMethodFound)
throw new InvalidOperationException("No appropriate HandlePacket() method found for type " + handlerType.FullName);
}
}
public void HandlePacket(IPacket packet)
{
if (_handlers.TryGetValue(packet.GetType(), out var handler))
{
handler(packet);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("No handler found for packet type " + packet.GetType().FullName);
}
}
readonly Dictionary<Type, Action<IPacket>> _handlers = new Dictionary<Type, Action<IPacket>>();
}
class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var packetHandlers = new List<IPacketHandlerTag>
{
new FooPacketHandler(),
new BarPacketHandler()
};
var manager = new PacketHandlerManager(packetHandlers);
var foo = new FooPacket();
var bar = new BarPacket();
var baz = new BazPacket();
manager.HandlePacket(foo);
manager.HandlePacket(bar);
manager.HandlePacket(baz);
}
}
}
The output of this is:
Handling FooPacket
Handling BarPacket
No handler found for packet type ConsoleApp1.BazPacket

Thanks for the answers. The solution I ended up with is this, starting with the library code:
public enum PacketType
{
Foo,
Bar
}
public interface IPacket
{
PacketType Type { get; }
}
public class FooPacket : IPacket
{
public PacketType Type => PacketType.Foo;
public string FooProperty { get; }
}
public class BarPacket : IPacket
{
public PacketType Type => PacketType.Bar;
public string BarProperty { get; }
}
The above version is a better approximation of the real thing.
public interface IPacketHandler
{
void HandlePacket(IPacket packet);
}
public abstract class PacketHandler<T> : IPacketHandler where T : IPacket
{
public abstract PacketType HandlesPacketType { get; }
public void HandlePacket(IPacket packet)
{
if (packet is T concretePacket)
{
HandlePacket(concretePacket);
}
}
protected abstract void HandlePacket(T packet);
}
public class FooPacketHandler : PacketHandler<FooPacket>
{
public override PacketType HandlesPacketType => PacketType.Foo;
protected override void HandlePacket(FooPacket packet) { /* some logic that accesses FooProperty */ }
}
public class BarPacketHandler : PacketHandler<BarPacket>
{
public override PacketType HandlesPacketType => PacketType.Bar;
protected override void HandlePacket(BarPacket packet) { /* some logic that accesses BarProperty */ }
}
public class PacketHandlerManager
{
public PacketHandlerManager(Library library, IEnumerable<IPacketHandler> packetHandlers)
{
foreach (var packetHandler in packetHandlers)
{
library.Bind(packetHandler.HandlesPacketType, packetHandler.HandlePacket);
}
}
}
There's some more logic in PacketHandlerManager which I've omitted here. library dispatches packets to handlers, so I don't have to deal with that explicitly after I register handlers using the Bind method.
It's not exactly what I imagined, but it'll do.

Is it possible to create a Singleton factory class maintaining a dictionary for instances?

I have multiple classes that inherit from IPrint. I want to instantiate these classes using a factory but I want to maintain a single instance of each type.
Is this possible?
Please find my sample code below.
public interface IPrint
{
void DoPrint();
}
public class DigitalPrint : IPrint
{
public void DoPrint()
{
// logic
}
}
public class InkPrint : IPrint
{
public void DoPrint()
{
// logic
}
}
public class PrintFactory
{
private static IDictionary<IPrint, object> prints = new
Dictionary<IPrint, object>();
private PrintFactory()
{
}
public static IPrint GetPrint(PrintType type)
{
// return instance depending on type. Instantiate only once
//like singleton
// How to write so that it returns a single instance depending
//on type
return null;
}
}
public enum PrintType
{
DigitalPrint,
InkPrint
}
Can someone give me some idea if this is possible?
Thanks.

You can create IPrint instances when initializing Dictionary<PrintType, IPrint>:
private static IDictionary<PrintType, IPrint> prints =
new Dictionary<PrintType, IPrint> {
{ PrintType.DigitalPrint, new DigitalPrint() },
{ PrintType.InkPrint, new InkPrint() }
};
Getting print (thus print is a class, the same instance will be returned for each request):
public static IPrint GetPrint(PrintType type)
{
IPrint print;
if (!prints.TryGetValue(type, out print))
return null;
return print;
}
If you don't want to create IPrint instances until the client asks for them, you can use Dictionary<PrintType, Lazy<IPrint>>:
private static IDictionary<string, Lazy<IPrint>> prints =
new Dictionary<string, Lazy<IPrint>> {
{ PrintType.DigitalPrint, new Lazy<IPrint>(() => new DigitalPrint()) },
{ PrintType.InkPrint, new Lazy<IPrint>(() => new InkPrint()) }
};
Getting print (in this case only one instance of each IPrint type will be created, but not before someone tries to get the instance of that type):
public static IPrint GetPrint(PrintType type)
{
Lazy<IPrint> factory;
if (!prints.TryGetValue(type, out factory))
return null;
return factory.Value;
}
Though I would consider using dependency injection framework instead of implementing such functionality manually.
Further reading: Ninject or Autofac

Yes, it's possible.
This creates the IPrint's before they're needed. You could make them lazily created, instead.
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var factory = new PrintFactory();
Console.WriteLine(PrintFactory.GetPrint(PrintType.DigitalPrint));
Console.WriteLine(PrintFactory.GetPrint(PrintType.InkPrint));
}
}
public interface IPrint
{
void DoPrint();
}
public class DigitalPrint : IPrint
{
public void DoPrint()
{
// logic
}
}
public class InkPrint : IPrint
{
public void DoPrint()
{
// logic
}
}
public class PrintFactory
{
// Make the dictionary from PrintType to IPrint instead of IPrint to object
private static IDictionary<PrintType, IPrint> prints = new Dictionary<PrintType, IPrint>();
// Initialize prints in a static constructor.
static PrintFactory()
{
prints.Add(PrintType.DigitalPrint, new DigitalPrint());
prints.Add(PrintType.InkPrint, new InkPrint());
}
public static IPrint GetPrint(PrintType type)
{
if (!prints.ContainsKey(type))
{
// TODO: Maybe throw an exception or log?
}
return prints[type];
}
}
public enum PrintType
{
DigitalPrint,
InkPrint
}

I would get rid of the enum and make a generic method:
public static IPrint GetPrint<T>() where T : IPrint, new ()
{
foreach (var key in prints.Keys) {
if (key is T)
return null;
}
return new T();
}

How to override a type already registered in LightInject using a new instance passed to the constructor?

In repository I keep some instances which live throughout the lifetime of my application but sometimes I need an immediate replacement for such instance with another instance and LightInject even if passing the new instance to the container.GetInstance constructor override.
Here is a snippet showing the problem:
internal class ClassA
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public ClassA(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Name;
}
}
internal class ClassB
{
public ClassA A { get; private set; }
public ClassB(ClassA a)
{
A = a;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return string.Format("I contain {0}", A);
}
}
private void TestContainer()
{
var container = new LightInject.ServiceContainer();
var a1 = new ClassA("A instance 1");
container.Register(x => a1);
container.Register<ClassB>();
var a2 = new ClassA("A instance 2");
var bwitha1 = container.GetInstance<ClassB>();
if(bwitha1.A != a1)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("This will not happen");
}
var bwitha2 = container.GetInstance<ClassA, ClassB>(a2);
if(bwitha2.A != a2)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Something went wrong here");
}
}
Why LightInject previously registered instance takes precedence if I give explicit instance in GetInstance call? How to get around the issue and construct the object with an alternative instance of one of the arguments?

In the current version of LightInject you need to provide a factory if you want to use runtime arguments.
The following workaround might work for you.
using LightInject;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var container = new ServiceContainer();
container.Register<Bar>();
container.Register<Foo>();
container.Register<Bar, Foo>((factory, bar) => new Foo(bar), "FooWithRuntimeArgument");
var instance = container.GetInstance<Foo>();
var instanceWithRuntimeArgument = container.GetInstance<Bar, Foo>(new Bar(), "FooWithRuntimeArgument");
}
}
public class Foo
{
public Foo(Bar bar) {}
}
public class Bar {}

Is it possible to create a derived class from a base class constructor?

I have say 3 classes, Animal, Cat & Dog.
// calling code
var x = new Animal("Rex"); // would like this to return a dog type
var x = new Animal("Mittens"); // would like this to return a cat type
if(x.GetType() == typeof(Dog))
{
x.Bark();
}
else
{
x.Meow();
}
class Animal
{
public Animal(string name)
{
// check against some list of dog names ... find rex
// return Animal of type Dog.
// if not...
// check against some list of cat names ... find mittens
// return Animal of type Cat.
}
}
Is this possible somehow? If not is there something similar I can do?

What you are looking for is either a 'virtual constructor' (not possibe in C#) or the Factory pattern.
class Animal
{
// Factory method
public static Animal Create(string name)
{
Animal animal = null;
... // some logic based on 'name'
animal = new Zebra();
return animal;
}
}
The Factory method can also be placed in another (Factory) class. That gives better decoupling etc.

No. Basically the right fix is to use a static method which can create an instance of the right type:
var x = Animal.ForName("Rex");
var x = Animal.ForName("Mittens");
...
public abstract class Animal
{
public static Animal ForName(string name)
{
if (dogNames.Contains(name))
{
return new Dog(name);
}
else
{
return new Cat(name);
}
}
}
Or this could be an instance method in an AnimalFactory type (or whatever). That would be a more extensible approach - the factory could implement an interface, for example, and could be injected into the class which needed to create the instances. It really depends on the context though - sometimes that approach is overkill.
Basically, a new Foo(...) call always creates an instance of exactly Foo. Whereas a static method declared with a return type of Foo can return a reference to any type which is compatible with Foo.

No I dont think it is possible in the way that you want.
You could create a static class that has a method that returns an animal based on a name e.g.
static Animal CreateAnimal(string name)
{
if(catList.Contains(name))
return new Cat(name");
else if(dogList.Contains(name))
return new Dog(name);
return null;
}

The other answers show that you need to use a factory pattern but I wanted to give you a more "practical" example of how you would do it. I did exactly what you where doing, however I was working with the EPL2 printer language. When I saw X I needed to create a instance of class Rectangle, when I saw A I needed to create a instance of class Text.
(I wrote this a long time ago so I am sure some of the things I did could be improved upon).
public partial class Epl2CommandFactory
{
#region Singelton pattern
private static volatile Epl2CommandFactory m_instance;
private static object m_syncRoot = new object();
public static Epl2CommandFactory Instance
{
get
{
if (m_instance == null)
{
lock (m_syncRoot)
{
if (m_instance == null)
{
m_instance = new Epl2CommandFactory();
}
}
}
return m_instance;
}
}
#endregion
#region Constructor
private Epl2CommandFactory()
{
m_generalCommands = new Dictionary<string, Type>();
Initialize();
}
#endregion
#region Variables
private Dictionary<string, Type> m_generalCommands;
private Assembly m_asm;
#endregion
#region Helpers
private void Initialize()
{
Assembly asm = Assembly.GetAssembly(GetType());
Type[] allTypes = asm.GetTypes();
foreach (Type type in allTypes)
{
// Only scan classes that are not abstract
if (type.IsClass && !type.IsAbstract)
{
// If a class implements the IEpl2FactoryProduct interface,
// which allows retrieval of the product class key...
Type iEpl2FactoryProduct = type.GetInterface("IEpl2GeneralFactoryProduct");
if (iEpl2FactoryProduct != null)
{
// Create a temporary instance of that class...
object inst = asm.CreateInstance(type.FullName);
if (inst != null)
{
// And generate the product classes key
IEpl2GeneralFactoryProduct keyDesc = (IEpl2GeneralFactoryProduct)inst;
string key = keyDesc.GetFactoryKey();
m_generalCommands.Add(key, type);
inst = null;
}
}
}
}
m_asm = asm;
}
#endregion
#region Methods
public IEpl2Command CreateEpl2Command(string command)
{
if (command == null)
throw new NullReferenceException("Invalid command supplied, must be " +
"non-null.");
Type type;
if (!m_generalCommands.TryGetValue(command.Substring(0, 2), out type))
m_generalCommands.TryGetValue(command.Substring(0, 1), out type);
if (type != default(Type))
{
object inst = m_asm.CreateInstance(type.FullName, true,
BindingFlags.CreateInstance,
null, null, null, null);
if (inst == null)
throw new NullReferenceException("Null product instance. " +
"Unable to create necessary product class.");
IEpl2Command prod = (IEpl2Command)inst;
prod.CommandString = command;
return prod;
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
#endregion
}
The way the code works is I use the singleton pattern to create a factory class so people can call var command = Epl2CommandFactory.Instance.CreateEpl2Command("..."); passing in the EPL2 command string and it returns a instance of the class that represents that specific class.
During initialization I use reflection to find classes that support the IEpl2GeneralFactoryProduct interface, if the class supports the interface the factory stores the one or two letter code representing the printer command in a dictionary of types.
When you try to create the command the factory looks up the printer command in the dictionary and creates the correct class, it then passes the full command string on to that class for further processing.
Here is a copy of a command class and it's parents if you wanted to see it
Rectangle:
[XmlInclude(typeof(Rectangle))]
public abstract partial class Epl2CommandBase { }
/// <summary>
/// Use this command to draw a box shape.
/// </summary>
public class Rectangle : DrawableItemBase, IEpl2GeneralFactoryProduct
{
#region Constructors
public Rectangle() : base() { }
public Rectangle(Point startingLocation, int horozontalEndPosition, int verticalEndPosition)
: base(startingLocation)
{
HorizontalEndPosition = horozontalEndPosition;
VerticalEndPosition = verticalEndPosition;
}
public Rectangle(int x, int y, int lineThickness, int horozontalEndPosition, int verticalEndPosition)
: base(x, y)
{
LineThickness = lineThickness;
HorizontalEndPosition = horozontalEndPosition;
VerticalEndPosition = verticalEndPosition;
}
#endregion
#region Properties
[XmlIgnore]
public int LineThickness { get; set; }
[XmlIgnore]
public int HorizontalEndPosition {get; set;}
[XmlIgnore]
public int VerticalEndPosition { get; set; }
public override string CommandString
{
get
{
return String.Format("X{0},{1},{2},{3},{4}", X, Y, LineThickness, HorizontalEndPosition, VerticalEndPosition);
}
set
{
GenerateCommandFromText(value);
}
}
#endregion
#region Helpers
private void GenerateCommandFromText(string command)
{
if (!command.StartsWith(GetFactoryKey()))
throw new ArgumentException("Command must begin with " + GetFactoryKey());
string[] commands = command.Substring(1).Split(',');
this.X = int.Parse(commands[0]);
this.Y = int.Parse(commands[1]);
this.LineThickness = int.Parse(commands[2]);
this.HorizontalEndPosition = int.Parse(commands[3]);
this.VerticalEndPosition = int.Parse(commands[4]);
}
#endregion
#region Members
public override void Paint(Graphics g, Image buffer)
{
using (Pen p = new Pen(Color.Black, LineThickness))
{
g.DrawRectangle(p, new System.Drawing.Rectangle(X, Y, HorizontalEndPosition - X, VerticalEndPosition - Y));
}
}
public string GetFactoryKey()
{
return "X";
}
#endregion
}
DrawableItemBase:
public abstract class DrawableItemBase : Epl2CommandBase, IDrawableCommand
{
protected DrawableItemBase()
{
Location = new Point();
}
protected DrawableItemBase(Point location)
{
Location = location;
}
protected DrawableItemBase(int x, int y)
{
Location = new Point();
X = x;
Y = y;
}
private Point _Location;
[XmlIgnore]
public virtual Point Location
{
get { return _Location; }
set { _Location = value; }
}
[XmlIgnore]
public int X
{
get { return _Location.X; }
set { _Location.X = value; }
}
[XmlIgnore]
public int Y
{
get { return _Location.Y; }
set { _Location.Y = value; }
}
abstract public void Paint(Graphics g, Image buffer);
}
Epl2CommandBase:
public abstract partial class Epl2CommandBase : IEpl2Command
{
protected Epl2CommandBase() { }
public virtual byte[] GenerateByteCommand()
{
return Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(CommandString + '\n');
}
public abstract string CommandString { get; set; }
}
Various Interfaces:
public interface IEpl2GeneralFactoryProduct
{
string GetFactoryKey();
}
public interface IEpl2Command
{
string CommandString { get; set; }
}
public interface IDrawableCommand : IEpl2Command
{
void Paint(System.Drawing.Graphics g, System.Drawing.Image buffer);
}

Inheriting an already instantiated base object

Is it possible to do something like the following:
public class ChildClass : BaseClass
{
public ChildClass(BaseClass o)
{
base = o;
}
}
Basically, I want a transparent way to wrap a base class inside of other functionality. One example I've thought of is a custom Settings Provider which transparently audits the settings passed through it.
public class SettingsAuditor : SettingsProvider
{
public SettingsAuditor(SettingsProvider o)
{
base = o;
}
public override void SetPropertyValues(SettingsContext context, SettingsPropertyValueCollection propvals)
{
// Log the property change to a file
base.SetPropertyValues(context, propvals);
}
}
Then I could do the following:
mySettingsProvider = new SettingsAuditor(mySettingsProvider);
And all changes would go through the overridden SetPropertyValues before passing to the original object.
I could use a private SettingsProvider member, but then I either cannot inherit from SettingsProvider, or have an entire SettingsProvider (base) not being used at all.
I'm using C# 4.0 and .Net 4.0.

You cannot do base = o;
What you're looking for is the Decorator Pattern), which is a way to compositionally add functionality at runtime (vs. inheritance).
Instead of trying to set the base, you just contain the inner member. As long as the wrapper implements the same interface or base class as the inner object, you can pass back the new wrapper. You can wrap as many decorators as you want.
Consider:
public interface ICar
{
void Drive();
}
public class Car : ICar
{
public void Drive()
{
Console.WriteLine("vroom");
}
}
public class BuckleUp : ICar
{
ICar car;
public BuckleUp(ICar car) { this.car = car; }
public void Drive()
{
Console.WriteLine("click!");
car.Drive();
}
}
public class CheckMirrors : ICar
{
ICar car;
public CheckMirrors(ICar car) { this.car = car; }
public void Drive()
{
Console.WriteLine("mirrors adjusted");
car.Drive();
}
}
Now consider you have a method that accepts an ICar and tells it to drive. You could give it a Car, and it would work, but you could also wrap that car in a BuckleUp and a CheckMirrors and you wouldn't have to change that method at all. You've modified functionality through composition using the Decorator Pattern.

No. This looks like it should be a Composition vs Inheritance issue. You need to evaluate whether you are a "is a" or a "has a."
A little help for your journey

This is not a complete implmentation and it could probably be done much cleaner with expression trees... but this was a quick swing at faking AOP using DynamicObject with .Net 4.0.
public class MyDynamicWrapper<T> : DynamicObject
{
public T Wrapped { get; private set; }
public Action<T> Pre { get; private set; }
public Action<T> Post { get; private set; }
public MyDynamicWrapper(T wrapped, Action<T> pre, Action<T> post)
{
this.Wrapped = wrapped;
this.Pre = pre;
this.Post = post;
}
public override bool TryGetMember(
GetMemberBinder binder,
out object result)
{
var type = typeof(T);
var method = type.GetMethod(binder.Name);
if (method != null)
{
Func<object> func = () =>
{
if (Pre != null)
Pre(Wrapped);
// support for input parameters could be added here
var ret = method.Invoke(Wrapped, null);
if (Post != null)
Post(Wrapped);
return ret;
};
result = func;
return true;
}
return base.TryGetMember(binder, out result);
}
}
public class MyDynamicWrapper
{
public static MyDynamicWrapper<T> Create<T>(
T toWrap,
Action<T> pre = null,
Action<T> post = null)
{
return new MyDynamicWrapper<T>(toWrap, pre, post);
}
}
public class MyObject
{
public void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("Do Something");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var myobject = new MyObject();
dynamic mydyn = MyDynamicWrapper.Create(
myobject,
p => Console.WriteLine("before"),
p => Console.WriteLine("after"));
// Note that you have no intellisence...
// but you could use the old implmentation before you
// changed to this wrapped version.
mydyn.MyMethod();
/* output below
before
Do Something
after
*/
}
}

No, but you could fake it:
public class SettingsAuditor
{
SettingsProvider #base;
public SettingsAuditor(SettingsProvider o)
{
#base = o;
}
public void SetPropertyValues(SettingsContext context, SettingsPropertyValueCollection propvals)
{
// Log the property change to a file
#base.SetPropertyValues(context, propvals);
}
}
Note here, #base isn't the actual base, just a varaible named base