We have a Web API library, that calls into a Business/Service library(where our business logic is located), which in turn calls a Data access library (Repository).
We use this type of data transfer object all over the place. It has a "Payers" property that we may have to filter (meaning, manipulate its value). I have gone about implementing that check as such, but it feels dirty to me, as I'm calling the same function all over the place. I have thought about either:
Using an attribute filter to handle this or
Making the RequestData a property on the class, and do the filtering in the constructor.
Any additional thoughts or design patterns where this could be designed more efficiently:
public class Example
{
private MyRepository _repo = new MyRepository();
private void FilterRequestData(RequestData data)
{
//will call into another class that may or may not alter RequestData.Payers
}
public List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample1(RequestData data)
{
FilterRequestData(RequestData data);
return _repo.GetMyDataExample1(data);
}
public List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample2(RequestData data)
{
FilterRequestData(RequestData data);
return _repo.GetMyDataExample2(data);
}
public List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample3(RequestData data)
{
FilterRequestData(RequestData data);
return _repo.GetMyDataExample3(data);
}
}
public class RequestData
{
List<string> Payers {get;set;}
}
One way of dealing with repeated code like that is to use a strategy pattern with a Func (and potentially some generics depending on your specific case). You could refactor that into separate classes and everything but the basic idea looks like that:
public class MyRepository
{
internal List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample1(RequestData arg) { return new List<ReturnData>(); }
internal List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample2(RequestData arg) { return new List<ReturnData>(); }
internal List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample3(RequestData arg) { return new List<ReturnData>(); }
}
public class ReturnData { }
public class Example
{
private MyRepository _repo = new MyRepository();
private List<ReturnData> FilterRequestDataAndExecute(RequestData data, Func<RequestData, List<ReturnData>> action)
{
// call into another class that may or may not alter RequestData.Payers
// and then execute the actual code, potentially with some standardized exception management around it
// or logging or anything else really that would otherwise be repeated
return action(data);
}
public List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample1(RequestData data)
{
// call the shared filtering/logging/exception mgmt/whatever code and pass some additional code to execute
return FilterRequestDataAndExecute(data, _repo.GetMyDataExample1);
}
public List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample2(RequestData data)
{
// call the shared filtering/logging/exception mgmt/whatever code and pass some additional code to execute
return FilterRequestDataAndExecute(data, _repo.GetMyDataExample2);
}
public List<ReturnData> GetMyDataExample3(RequestData data)
{
// call the shared filtering/logging/exception mgmt/whatever code and pass some additional code to execute
return FilterRequestDataAndExecute(data, _repo.GetMyDataExample3);
}
}
public class RequestData
{
List<string> Payers { get; set; }
}
This sort of thinking naturally leads to aspect oriented programming.
It's specifically designed to handle cross-cutting concerns (e.g. here, your filter function cuts across your query logic.)
As #dnickless suggests, you can do this in an ad-hoc way by refactoring your calls to remove the duplicated code.
More general solutions exist, such as PostSharp which give you a slightly cleaner way of structuring code along aspects. It is proprietary, but I believe the free tier gives enough to investigate an example like this. At the very least it's interesting to see how it would look in PostSharp, and whether you think it improves it at all! (It makes strong use of attributes, which extends first suggestion.)
(N.B. I'm not practically suggesting installing another library for a simple case like this, but highlighting how these types of problems might be examined in general.)
FYI: the verbose preamble is to help explain why I am using Activator.CreateInstance. I have a number of entities (objects corresponding to database column information) that are "contained" in multiple databases, each of which has a different table/column setup. So I am able to retrieve an entity from each database, but the way I retrieve it is different per database. The database type is not known till runtime and could vary throughout execution. I have created the following setup:
First define the query operations each entity should support and each entity reader should support these operations.
public abstract class Operations<T> {
public delegate T findDelegate(int id);
public findDelegate find;
}
// there are many of these N=1,2,..., but here is one
// use abstract class since implementation of queries should be done by handlers
public class EntityNReader : Operations<EntityN> {
public Reader();
}
Define an interface for "Handler" classes, i.e. these classes implement the query operations listed above.
public interface IHandler<T> {
public string find(int id);
}
// there are many of these N,M=1,2..., but here is one
// use of interface is to force handlers to implement all query types
public class EntityNHandlerForDbTypeM : IHandler<EntityN> {
public string find(int id) {/*whatever*/}
}
This allows the developers to create a single class for handling EntityN query operations for DbTypeM. Now, create a Database class that contains the reader objects and binds the handler methods to the reader delegates.
public class Database {
// there are many of these, but here is one
public EntityNReader EntitiesN;
public Database(string dbType) {
// this is called for each EntityNReader
bindHandlers<Reader, TypeN>(MyReader, dbType);
// ...
// nullreferenceexception
EntitiesN.find(0);
}
// this is a factory that also performs late binding
private void bindHandlers<T,K>(T reader, string dbTypeM)
where T: Operations<K>, new()
{
// create instance of EntityNReader
r = (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
// r != null
// create instance of handler
IHandler<K> h = (IHandler<K>)(Activator.CreateInstance(
Type.GetType("namespace.to.EntityNHandlerForDbTypeM"),
new object[] { this }
));
// bind delegates
r.find = h.find;
}
}
As you can see in Databases constructor, the way the code is written now, I get a NullReferenceException even though instance r of EntityNReader is created and (verified to be) not null.
However, if I instantiate EntitiesN where it is declared in Database instead of within bindHandlers, the code compiles and everything works. The reason I don't just do this is that (subsequently) I would like to conditionally create readers/handlers inside of bindHandlers at the time the Database class is instantiated.
What is happening here? Link to actual code if necessary.
P.S. I am relatively new to programming, so I am open to hearing how an experience developer might design this component (especially if I am heading down the wrong path).
I realize your code was just samples, but I spotted this right off the bat...
if (supports[typeof(Entity1).Name]) { bindHandlers<Entity1Reader, Entity1>(Entities1, CamaDbType); }
if (supports[typeof(Entity2).Name]) { bindHandlers<Entity1Reader, Entity1>(Entities1, CamaDbType); }
Is it possible that you have a simple copy/paste mistake? Notice that Entities1 is passed in for both bindHandlers calls.
I'm faced with the prospect of using a factory method like below to effect setter based DI (because Entity Framework prevents me from using constructor based DI). So when an object is materialized in EF I call the method below to do the setter DI.
public void AttachKeyHolder(ILocalizableEntity localizableEntity)
{
var ft = (localizableEntity as FeeType);
if (ft != null)
{
localizableEntity.KeyHolder = new FeeTypeKeyHolder();
return;
}
var other = (localizableEntity as OtherType);
if (other != null)
{
localizableEntity.KeyHolder = new OtherTypeKeyHolder();
return;
}
// And on and on and on for every applicable type
}
I don't like this because it becomes a n-based problem whereby if I have 20 types that need this setter injection then whichever one is type checked in 20th place takes 20 times the amount of time to check as the first type check and since Im doing this every single time an object is materialized in EF it will likely not scale.
So Im looking for a better algorithm. The previous "solution" was to just assign the appropriate KeyHolder in the constructor of the associated object as below:
public FeeType()
{
this.KeyHolder = new FeeTypeKeyHolder();
}
This still seems like the most runtime efficient solution and one I'm still leaning very strongly towards regardless of testability due to potentially massive effect setter based DI will likely have with the above factory method. I'd really likely to decouple these classes but not at the expense of the scalability for this web application.
You can mark properties you need to set via DI with your attribute, like [Inject], and then in desired place (like constructor) call helper method like MyHelper.InjectProperties(this). In helper you can get attributes with [Inject] and resolve their values directly from constructor.
Most of IoC/DI frameworks supports property injection in a performance effective way, so in best of worlds you won't need to implement it by yourself.
First of all, are you sure this is going to have such a bad performance impact. I would doubt so.
Anyway, you can use Visitor patter to implement double dispatch, so instead of 20 test for type of the object, you invoke 2 virtual methods, that is two lookups in virtual methods tables, which might be faster than 20 tests, however there is the overhead of two indirect function calls, stack frame allocation for each of them, etc. But again, do we really want to go so deep in case of a C# project with Entity Framework?
Example:
class Visitor {
public virtual void Visit(FeeType f) {}
public virtual void Visit(OtherType t) {}
}
class abstract BaseType { public abstract void Accept(Visitor v); }
class FeeType : BaseType {
public override void Accept(Visitor v) { v.Visit(this); }
}
class OtherType : BaseType {
public override void Accept(Visitor v) { v.Visit(this); }
}
class DIVisitor : Visitor {
public virtual void Visit(FeeType f) { f.KeyHolder = new ... }
public virtual void Visit(OtherType t) { t.KeyHolder = new ... }
}
public void AttachKeyHolder(ILocalizableEntity localizableEntity)
{
var ft = (localizableEntity as TypeBase);
ft.Accept(new DIVisitor());
}
You can also implement the lookup for the correct method based on type through hashing.
HashMap<Type, Action<BaseType>> actions;
actions.Add(typeof(FeeType), x => { ((FreeType)x).KeyHolder = new .... });
...
actions[ft.GetType()].Invoke(ft);
I don't usually code C#, when i do, i suck
I have parent Class and two derived class. both derived class share an expensive calculation which slightly differ for second one. I am trying to avoid calculate one.
However, i want
interface ICalculator
{
double getValue(int id);
void setContext(int c);
}
abstract class CalculatorBase: ICalculator
{
internal static Dictionary<int, double> output = null;
internal void loadData()
{
//load data
}
internal computeAll()
{
//do expenseive calculation and set output
output = something
}
double abstract getValue(int id);
void abstract setContext(int c);
}
class ChildCalculator1 : CalculatorBase
{
override void setContext(int c)
{
if (output !=null)
return;
loadData();
computeAll();
}
public ovverride getValue(int id)
{
return output[id];
}
}
class ChildCalculator2 : CalculatorBase
{
override void setContext(int c)
{
if (output !=null)
return;
loadData();
computeAll();
}
public ovverride getValue(int id)
{
return output[id] -1;
}
}
requirements:
if ChildCalculator1 or ChildCalculator or both (one after another) is called, computeAll will be computed once.
However, if you reload this page i want to calculate once. This means i want to calculate once every pageload
Question: How can i access parent properties (output) from two different child instance (ChildCalculator1, ChildCalculator) and if you reload the page, that proproperty (output) will be recalculated? Currently I made output as static but this doesnt change when i reload the page.
Static variable might not be the right thing as they survive through out the application not page load. How can i dispose after pageload is done or anything else you can suggest?
Your code isn't so bad... but it could definitely be better. :)
You are correct that the static dictionary will not get garbage collected. (In C# the Garbage Collector free's unused memory) You need all instances of calculator to share your dictionary and you want to dispose of it when you are done. You could implement a little factory that builds the calculators and gives them all a single instance of the dictionary. A very simple way to do this however is just to manually manage the static dictionary.
If you add the following method in CalculatorBase
public static void DoneWithCalculations()
{
// By removing your static reference to your dictionary you
// allow the GC to free the memory.
output = null;
}
You can then call this static method when you are all done with your calculators (for instance at the end of PageLoad) like so...
CalculatorBase.DoneWithCalculations();
This will do what you need and doesn't force you to work in C# more than you have to. :)
I'll begin this question with apologizing for the length of the post. So that I save you some time, my problem is that the class pattern I've got stuck in my head is obviously flawed, and I can't see a good solution.
In a project I'm working on, I need to use operate algorithms on a chunks of data, let's call them DataCache. Sometimes these algorithms return results that themselves need to be cached, and so I devised a scheme.
I have an Algorithm base class that looks like so
abstract class Algorithm<T>
{
protected abstract T ExecuteAlgorithmLogic(DataCache dataCache);
private readonly Dictionary<DataCache, WeakReference> _resultsWeak = new Dictionary<DataCache, WeakReference>();
private readonly Dictionary<DataCache, T> _resultsStrong = new Dictionary<DataCache, T>();
public T ComputeResult(DataCache dataCache, bool save = false)
{
if (_resultsStrong.ContainsKey(dataCache))
return _resultsStrong[dataCache];
if (_resultsWeak.ContainsKey(dataCache))
{
var temp = _resultsWeak[dataCache].Target;
if (temp != null) return (T) temp;
}
var result = ExecuteAlgorithmLogic(dataCache);
_resultsWeak[dataCache] = new WeakReference(result, true);
if (save) _resultsStrong[dataCache] = result;
return result;
}
}
If you call ComputeResult() and provide a DataCache you can optionally select to cache the result. Also, if you are lucky result still might be there if the GC hasn't collected it yet. The size of each DataCache is in hundreds of megabytes, and before you ask there are about 10 arrays in each, which hold basic types such as int and float.
My idea here was that an actual algorithm would look something like this:
class ActualAgorithm : Algorithm<SomeType>
{
protected override SomeType ExecuteAlgorithmLogic(DataCache dataCache)
{
//Elves be here
}
}
And I would define tens of .cs files, each for one algorithm. There are two problems with this approach. Firstly, in order for this to work, I need to instantiate my algorithms and keep that instance (or the results are not cached and the entire point is mute). But then I end up with an unsightly singleton pattern implementation in each derived class. It would look something like so:
class ActualAgorithm : Algorithm<SomeType>
{
protected override SomeType ExecuteAlgorithmLogic(DataCache dataCache)
{
//Elves and dragons be here
}
protected ActualAgorithm(){ }
private static ActualAgorithm _instance;
public static ActualAgorithm Instance
{
get
{
_instance = _instance ?? new ActualAgorithm();
return _instance;
}
}
}
So in each implementation I would have to duplicate code for the singleton pattern. And secondly tens of CS files also sounds a bit overkill, since what I'm really after is just a single function returning some results that can be cached for various DataCache objects. Surely there must be a smarter way of doing this, and I would greatly appreciate a nudge in the right direction.
What I meant with my comment was something like this:
abstract class BaseClass<K,T> where T : BaseClass<K,T>, new()
{
private static T _instance;
public static T Instance
{
get
{
_instance = _instance ?? new T();
return _instance;
}
}
}
class ActualClass : BaseClass<int, ActualClass>
{
public ActualClass() {}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(ActualClass.Instance.GetType().ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
The only problem here is that you'll have a public constructor.
I refined my previous answer but as it is rather different than the other approach I proposed, I thought I might just make another answer. First, we'll need to declare some interfaces:
// Where to find cached data
interface DataRepository {
void cacheData(Key k, Data d);
Data retrieveData(Key k, Data d);
};
// If by any chance we need an algorithm somewhere
interface AlgorithmRepository {
Algorithm getAlgorithm(Key k);
}
// The algorithm that process data
interface Algorithm {
void processData(Data in, Data out);
}
Given these interfaces, we can define some basic implementation for the algorithm repository:
class BaseAlgorithmRepository {
// The algorithm dictionnary
Map<Key, Algorithm> algorithms;
// On init, we'll build our repository using this function
void setAlgorithmForKey(Key k, Algorithm a) {
algorithms.put(k, a);
}
// ... implement the other function of the interface
}
Then we can also implement something for the DataRepository
class DataRepository {
AlgorithmRepository algorithmRepository;
Map<Key, Data> cache;
void cacheData(Key k, Data d) {
cache.put(k, d);
}
Data retrieveData(Key k, Data in) {
Data d = cache.get(k);
if (d==null) {
// Data not found in the cache, then we try to produce it ourself
Data d = new Data();
Algorithm a = algorithmRepository.getAlgorithm(k);
a.processData(in, d);
// This is optional, you could simply throw an exception to say that the
// data has not been cached and thus, the algorithm succession did not
// produce the necessary data. So instead of the above, you could simply:
// throw new DataNotCached(k);
// and thus halt the whole processing
}
return d;
}
}
Finally, we get to implement algorithms:
abstract class BaseAlgorithm {
DataRepository repository;
}
class SampleNoCacheAlgorithm extends BaseAlgorithm {
void processData(Data in, Data out) {
// do something with in to compute out
}
}
class SampleCacheProducerAlgorithm extends BaseAlgorithm {
static Key KEY = "SampleCacheProducerAlgorithm.myKey";
void processData(Data in, Data out) {
// do something with in to compute out
// then call repository.cacheData(KEY, out);
}
}
class SampleCacheConsumerAlgorithm extends BaseAlgorithm {
void processData(Data in, Data out) {
// Data tmp = repository.retrieveData(SampleCacheProducerAlgorithm.KEY, in);
// do something with in and tmp to compute out
}
}
To build on this, I think you could also define some special kinds of algorithms that are just in fact composites of other algorithms but also implement the Algorithm interface. An example could be:
class AlgorithmChain extends BaseAlgorithm {
List<Algorithms> chain;
void processData(Data in, Data out) {
Data currentIn = in;
foreach (Algorithm a : chain) {
Data currentOut = new Data();
a.processData(currentIn, currentOut);
currentIn = currentOut;
}
out = currentOut;
}
}
One addition I would make to this is a DataPool, that would allow you to reuse exisiting but unused Data objects in order to avoid allocating lots of memory each time you make a new Data().
I think this set of classes could give a good basis to your whole architecture, with the additional benefit that it does not employ any Singleton (always passing references to the concerned objects). Which means also that implementing dummy classes for unit tests would be rather easy.
You could have your algorithms independant of their results:
class Engine<T> {
Map<AlgorithmKey, Algorithm<T>> algorithms;
Map<AlgorithmKey, Data> algorithmsResultCache;
T processData(Data in);
}
interface Algorithm<T> {
boolean doesResultNeedsToBeCached();
T processData(Data in);
}
Then you Engine is responsible for instanciating the algorithms which are only pieces of code where the input is data and the output is either null or some data. Each algorithm can say whether his result needs to be cached or not.
In order to refine my answer, I think you should give some precisions about how the algorithms are to be run (is there an order, is it user adjustable, do we know in advance the algorithms that will be run, ...).
Can you register your algorithm instances with a combined repository/factory of algorithms that'll keep references to them? The repository could be a singleton, and, if you give the repository control of algorithm instantiation, you could use it to ensure that only one instance of each existed.
public class AlgorithmRepository
{
//... use boilerplate singleton code
public void CreateAlgorithm(Algorithms algorithm)
{
//... add to some internal hash or map, checking that it hasn't been created already
//... Algorithms is just an enum telling it which to create (clunky factory
// implementation)
}
public void ComputeResult(Algorithms algorithm, DataCache datacache)
{
// Can lazy load algoirthms here and make CreateAlgorithm private ..
CreateAlgorithm(algorithm);
//... compute and return.
}
}
This said, having a separate class (and cs file) for each algorithm makes sense to me. You could break with convention and have multiple algo classes in a single cs file if they're lightweight and it makes it easier to manage if you're worried about the number of files -- there are worse things to do. FWIW I'd just put up with the number of files ...
Typically when you create a Singleton class you don't want to inherit from it. When you do this you lose some of the goodness of the Singleton pattern (and what I hear from the pattern zealots is that an angel loses its wings every time you do something like this). But lets be pragmatic...sometimes you do what you have to do.
Regardless I do not think combining generics and inheritance will work in this instance anyway.
You indicated the number of algorithms will be in the tens (not hundreds). As long is this is the case I would create a dictionary keyed off of System.Type and store references to your methods as the values of the dictionary. In this case I used
Func<DataCache, object> as the dictionary value signature.
When the class instantiates for the first time register all your available algorithms in the dictionary. At runtime when the class needs to execute an algorithm for type T it will get the Type of T and look up the alogorithm in the dictionary.
If the code for the algorithms will be relatively involved I would suggest splitting them off into partial classes just to keep your code readable.
public sealed partial class Algorithm<T>
{
private static object ExecuteForSomeType(DataCache dataCache)
{
return new SomeType();
}
}
public sealed partial class Algorithm<T>
{
private static object ExecuteForSomeOtherType(DataCache dataCache)
{
return new SomeOtherType();
}
}
public sealed partial class Algorithm<T>
{
private readonly Dictionary<System.Type, Func<DataCache, object>> _algorithms = new Dictionary<System.Type, Func<DataCache, object>>();
private readonly Dictionary<DataCache, WeakReference> _resultsWeak = new Dictionary<DataCache, WeakReference>();
private readonly Dictionary<DataCache, T> _resultsStrong = new Dictionary<DataCache, T>();
private Algorithm() { }
private static Algorithm<T> _instance;
public static Algorithm<T> Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
{
_instance = new Algorithm<T>();
_instance._algorithms.Add(typeof(SomeType), ExecuteForSomeType);
_instance._algorithms.Add(typeof(SomeOtherType), ExecuteForSomeOtherType);
}
return _instance;
}
}
public T ComputeResult(DataCache dataCache, bool save = false)
{
T returnValue = (T)(new object());
if (_resultsStrong.ContainsKey(dataCache))
{
returnValue = _resultsStrong[dataCache];
return returnValue;
}
if (_resultsWeak.ContainsKey(dataCache))
{
returnValue = (T)_resultsWeak[dataCache].Target;
if (returnValue != null) return returnValue;
}
returnValue = (T)_algorithms[returnValue.GetType()](dataCache);
_resultsWeak[dataCache] = new WeakReference(returnValue, true);
if (save) _resultsStrong[dataCache] = returnValue;
return returnValue;
}
}
First off, I'd suggest you rename DataCache to something like DataInput for more clarity, because it's easy to confuse it with objects that really act as caches (_resultsWeak and _resultsStrong) to store the results.
Concerning the need for these caches to remain in memory for future use, maybe you should consider placing them in one of the wider scopes that exist in a .NET application than the object scope, Application or Session for example.
You could also use an AlgorithmLocator (see ServiceLocator pattern) as a single point of access to all Algorithms to get rid of the singleton logic duplication in each Algorithm.
Other than that, I find your solution to be a nice one globally. Whether or not it is overkill will basically depend on the homogeneity of your algorithms. If they all have the same way of caching data, of returning their results... it will be a great benefit to have all that logic factored out in a single place. But we lack context here to judge.
Encapsulating the caching logic in a specific object held by the Algorithm (CachingStrategy ?) would also be an alternative to inheriting it, but maybe a bit awkward since the caching object would have to access the cache before and after calculation and would need to be able to trigger algorithm calculation itself and have a hand on the results.
[Edit] if you're concerned with having one .cs file per algorithm, you can always group all Algorithm classes pertaining to a particular T in the same file.