I want to copy values from one object to another object. Something similar to pass by value but with assignment.
For example:
PushPin newValPushPin = oldPushPin; //I want to break the reference here.
I was told to write a copy constructor for this. But this class has a lot of properties, it will probably take an hour to write a copy constructor by hand.
Is there a better way to assign an object to another object by value?
If not, is there a copy constructor generator?
Note: ICloneable is not available in Silverlight.
If you can mark the object that is to be cloned as Serializable then you can use in-memory serialization to create a copy. Check the following code, it has the advantage that it will work on other kinds of objects as well and that you don't have to change your copy constructor or copy code each time an property is added, removed or changed:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var foo = new Foo(10, "test", new Bar("Detail 1"), new Bar("Detail 2"));
var clonedFoo = foo.Clone();
Console.WriteLine("Id {0} Bar count {1}", clonedFoo.Id, clonedFoo.Bars.Count());
}
}
public static class ClonerExtensions
{
public static TObject Clone<TObject>(this TObject toClone)
{
var formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
using (var memoryStream = new MemoryStream())
{
formatter.Serialize(memoryStream, toClone);
memoryStream.Position = 0;
return (TObject) formatter.Deserialize(memoryStream);
}
}
}
[Serializable]
public class Foo
{
public int Id { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public IEnumerable<Bar> Bars { get; private set; }
public Foo(int id, string name, params Bar[] bars)
{
Id = id;
Name = name;
Bars = bars;
}
}
[Serializable]
public class Bar
{
public string Detail { get; private set; }
public Bar(string detail)
{
Detail = detail;
}
}
There is a protected member called "MemberwiseClone", you can write this in your class...
public MyClass Clone(){
return (MyClass)this.MemberwiseClone();
}
then you can access..
MyClass newObject = oldObject.Clone();
The only way (that I'm aware of) to do this, and do it correctly, is to implement the copy yourself. Take for example:
public class FrobAndState
{
public Frob Frobber { get; set;}
public bool State { get; set; }
}
public class Frob
{
public List<int> Values { get; private set; }
public Frob(int[] values)
{
Values = new List<int>(values);
}
}
In this example you'd need to know how Frob was implemented, i.e. the fact that you need to call the constructor to create a copy of it as Values is read-only, to be able to make a copy of a given instance of FrobAndState.
Also - you couldn't just implement FrobAndState.Copy thusly:
public class FrobAndState
{
// ... Properties
public FrobAndState Copy()
{
var new = new FrobAndState();
new.State = this.State;
new.Frobber = this.Frobber;
}
}
Because both the instance of FrobAndState that you called .Copy() on, and the new instance would both have a reference to the same instance of Frobber.
In short, copying things is hard and any Copy implementation is difficult to get right.
C# does not have a copy constructor. There are different ways to tackle this. At the OOP level you could use inheritance or aggregation. AutoMapper might also be worth a try.
I want to copy values from one object
to another object. Something similiar
to pass by value but with assignment.
What do you mean by "with assignment"? If you mean that you want people to be able to say:
a = b;
And for you to define what = means, the only way you can do that in C# is if b is a different type to a and you've defined an implicit conversion (or more tenuously, if a stands for something of the form x.Y where Y is a property with a setter). You can't override = for a simple assignment between identical types in C#.
I was told to write a copy constructor
for this. But this class has alot of
properties, it will probably take an
hour to write a copy constructor by
hand.
If that's really true, then I would guess that you have a different problem. Your class is too big.
If you make your class Serializable you could Serialize it to a MemoryStream and Deserialize to a new instance.
If you want copy-on-assignment you should be using a struct instead of a class. But be careful, it is easy to make subtle mistakes. It is highly recommended that all stucts be immmutable to reduce the chance for error.
Though, this may not answer your question directly, but to add a cent; usually the term Clone is linked with shallow copy(referenced objects). To have a deep copy, I believe you will need to look into the some creational pattern(prototype?). The answer to this question might help.
You implement Justin Angel's method of cloning objects in Silverlight
using System;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Windows;
namespace JustinAngelNet.Silverlight.Framework
{
public static class SilverlightExtensions
{
public static T Clone<T>(T source)
{
T cloned = (T) Activator.CreateInstance(source.GetType());
foreach (PropertyInfo curPropInfo in source.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (curPropInfo.GetGetMethod() != null
&& (curPropInfo.GetSetMethod() != null))
{
// Handle Non-indexer properties
if (curPropInfo.Name != "Item")
{
// get property from source
object getValue = curPropInfo.GetGetMethod().Invoke(source, new object[] {});
// clone if needed
if (getValue != null && getValue is DependencyObject)
getValue = Clone((DependencyObject) getValue);
// set property on cloned
if (getValue != null)
curPropInfo.GetSetMethod().Invoke(cloned, new object[] {getValue});
}
// handle indexer
else
{
// get count for indexer
int numberofItemInColleciton =
(int)
curPropInfo.ReflectedType.GetProperty("Count").GetGetMethod().Invoke(source, new object[] {});
// run on indexer
for (int i = 0; i < numberofItemInColleciton; i++)
{
// get item through Indexer
object getValue = curPropInfo.GetGetMethod().Invoke(source, new object[] {i});
// clone if needed
if (getValue != null && getValue is DependencyObject)
getValue = Clone((DependencyObject) getValue);
// add item to collection
curPropInfo.ReflectedType.GetMethod("Add").Invoke(cloned, new object[] {getValue});
}
}
}
}
return cloned;
}
}
}
Then you can do this
MyClass newObject = SilverlightExtensions.Clone(oldObject);
Related
Recently, when handling collections of objects of the same (base-)class,
I´ve recently found myself writing something like this:
class SomeClass {
public bool PropertyA {get; set;}
}
class EncapsulatingClass {
private List<SomeClass> list = new();
private bool propA;
public bool PropertyA {
get { return propA; }
set {
propA = value;
foreach(SomeClass instance in list)
instance.PropertyA = value;
}
}
}
This is of course so I don´t have to use foreach every time I want to set a property for the collection. While this works fine, I feel like this requires a lot of code for something simple and a lot of repitition with each property.
Is there a better solution, like extracting the logic of "apply this for the property of the same name for each object in the list" into a function and just calling that in the setters?
There is the issue of ownership of the property. If you need to enforce synchronization such that setting PropertyA ins the encapsulating class, all the instances in the list also use the same value.
For example
class SomeClass
{
public SomeClass(EncapsulatingClass parent)
{
Parent=parent;
}
public EncapsulatingClass Parent { get; }
public bool PropertyA { get => Parent.PropertyA; }
}
class EncapsulatingClass
{
private List<SomeClass> list = new List<SomeClass>();
private bool propA;
public bool PropertyA
{
get { return propA; }
set
{
propA = value;
}
}
}
Otherwise, you have multiple PropertyA values, one for each instance, and then you have to decide which one is the master value, and what to do if some are different.
I'm wondering what it is you are doing to need this so often. It makes me think there's a flaw in the design of your application you could avoid by restructuring something but it's difficult to say without more information.
For your specific problem I would discard EncapsulatingClass and use the ForEach method on List<T> for a little more concise code:
myList.ForEach(s => s.PropertyA = true);
Alternatively, if you don't always use List<T> you can write your own extension method to work on all IEnumerables:
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action)
{
foreach (var t in source)
action(t);
}
// Call it just like previously:
myIEnumerable.ForEach(s => s.PropertyA = true);
Of course, this is still cumbersome if you need to do it a lot. But I suspect if you do, it's probably a flaw in the design.
I might approach this with a custom List class providing a single mass update method.
public class EasyUpdateList<T> : List<T>
{
public void UpdateAll(Action<T> update)
{
if (update == null)
return;
foreach (T item in this)
update(item);
}
}
Now you don't need a specific encapsulating class, you can just create a new EasyUpdateList and update any number of properties across the collection using the UpdateAll method.
EasyUpdateList<MyClass> list = new EasyUpdateList<MyClass>();
list.Add(instance1);
list.Add(instance2);
...
list.UpdateAll(x =>
{
x.Property1 = "Value1";
x.Property2 = "Value2";
});
This still uses a foreach loop but is much more generic and you don't have to change your other classes or write repeated code for each one.
Of course you could also achieve this with an extension method for a List class if you don't want a new class.
public static void UpdateAll<T>(this IList<T> list, Action<T> update)
{
if (update == null)
return;
foreach (T item in list)
update(item);
}
How Can I dynamically cast at runtime.That is I am passing a child class object in the parent class object.
public abstract class tObject
{
public tObject[] someMthode(){;}
}
public class myClass : tObject
{
public string Oth0 { get; set; }
public string Oth1 { get; set; }
public string Oth2 { get; set; }
}
I want
myClass mc=new myClass();
tObject to=mc;
myClass[] mcArray=(myClass[])mc.someMthode();//System.InvalidCastException
//Unable to cast object of type 'tObject[]' to type 'myClass[]'
but when check any element of mcArray is correct
if (mcArray[0] is myClass)
{
//return true and run this ;
}
In fact I want cast when a method return array of tObject according to the base class :
subClass[] mcArray=(subClass[])instanceOfsubClass.someMthode()
subClass or myClass and ... are unknown class , and i don't know theirs name.
Solution
public T[] Cast<T>(tObject[] mcArray ) where T : tObject
{
if (mcArray != null)
{
int cnt = mcArray.GetLength(0);
T[] t = new T[cnt];
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
{
t[i] = (T)mcArray[i];
}
return t;
}
return null;
}
Thanks all for replies.
C# does not support that kind of array conversion. C# does -- unfortunately! -- support dangerous array covariance. That is, if you had an array myClass[] then you could implicitly convert it to an array tObject[]. This means that you can do this:
Tiger[] tigers = new Tiger[10];
Animal[] animals = tigers;
animals[0] = new Turtle();
and now we have a turtle inside an array of tigers. This crashes at runtime.
That's bad enough, but you want it to go the other way -- I have an array of animals and I'd like it to be treated as an array of tigers. That does not work in C#.
As other answers have noted, you'll need to make a second array and copy the contents of the first to the second. There are a number of helper methods to do so.
Maybe?
myClass mc = new myClass();
tObject to = mc;
//myClass[] mcArray = (myClass[])mc.someMthode();//System.InvalidCastException
//Unable to cast object of type 'tObject[]' to type 'myClass[]'
var mcArray = Array.ConvertAll(mc.someMthode(), item => (myClass) item);
Well, you can call IEnumerable.Cast for that:
var myArr = mc.someMethod().Cast<MyClass>().ToArray();
As MyClass[] implements IEnumerable<MyClass>.
EDIT: What you want is quite dangerous. Look the following code:
subClass[] mcArray=(subClass[]) new BaseClass[] {...};
If this conversion would work we could now simply make the following also:
mcArray[0] = new AnotherClass();
Now you have an array of subClasses containin one item of AnotherClass also.
If you do not know the type at compile-time you cannot expect the compiler to provide any compile-time-logic for a type it doesn´t know. Thus casting to an unknown type and calling members on isn´t supported. However you may achieve this using reflection:
var runtimeType = myArr[0].GetType();
var mi = runtimeType.GetMethod("SomeMethod");
var value = mi.Invoke(myArr[0]);
This is similar to the call
var value = ((subClass)myArr[0]).SomeMethod();
Why not solve it one step up the chain and make someMethod (spelling corrected) generic:
public abstract class tObject<T> where T:tObject
{
public T[] someMethod(){;}
}
public class myClass : tObject<myClass>
{
public string Oth0 { get; set; }
public string Oth1 { get; set; }
public string Oth2 { get; set; }
}
now myClass.someMethod returns a myclass[] and that problem is solved. However, since I'm assuming that tObject does other things that just create an array of tObjects, it may cause other problems that aren't inferrable from the code you provided.
Plus it's not 100% foolproof. There's nothing stopping you (or someone else) from defining:
public class myWeirdClass : tObject<myClass>
{
}
now myWeirdClass.someMethod also returns a myClass[], and the pattern is broken. Unfortunately there's no generic constraint that requires that the generic parameter be the defining class itself, so there's no way to prevent this flaw at compile-time.
Another option may be to move the array creation outside of the class itself, since it is a code smell in itself:
public class ObjectFactory<T> where T:tObject
{
public T[] SomeMethod()
{
... create an array of Ts
}
}
I'm trying to attach a Generic list to a instance of a class using reflection, unlike when attaching simple objects method the PropertyInfo.SetValue(obj, value, index) is returning the exception {"Parameter count mismatch."} when value is an instance of List<SomeType> (as opposed to a string, int, bool or even a custom class).
That summery might not make much sense; The following may help to explain what I'm trying to do.
Say we are trying to populate the following class with reflection:
public class Foo
{
public virtual int someInt {get; set;}
public virtual IList<SomeClass> list {get; set;}
}
The method may look something like this:
public static T Parse<T>(HttpRequest request) where T : new()
{
returnObj = new T();
PropertyInfo[] properties = typeof(T).GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo p in properties)
{
// Get a meaningful property name
string ins = System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Replace(p.PropertyType.FullName, "([^,]*),.*$", "$1");
switch(ins)
{
// populate int
case "System.Int32":
p.SetValue(returnObj, Int32.Parse(request[p.Name]) , null);
break;
// populate list
case "System.Collections.Generic.IList`1[[SomeNamespace.Domain.SomeClass":
IList<SomeClass> list = new List<SomeClass>();
foreach (string s in request[p.Name].Split(','))
{
list.Add(new SomeClass(s));
}
// This will throw the exception 'Parameter count mismatch.'
p.SetValue(returnObj, list, null);
break;
}
}
return returnObj;
}
However when trying to add an instance of List (IList) in this way an exception is thrown.
Edit: To clarify, If been over this method with a fine tooth comb(Breakpoints) (well, the one in the application, not exactly this one) and all the variables are populated as expected; until SetValue throws an exception; if anyone needs some more information, do ask.
Edit2: So I built a smaller application to test this (In order to upload it as an example); and I'm having trouble recreating my own issue; As many of you have suggested this works. I'll update this question with the issue when I manage to track it down. Its probably something trivial, as these things so often are (The original codebase is massive and therefore not appropriate for me to post). Thanks for all your help so far and my apologies for wasting your time.
Im running the code from your question with some minor changes to make it compile and it seems to work fine:
void Main()
{
Parse<Foo>();
}
public static T Parse<T>() where T : new()
{
var returnObj = new T();
PropertyInfo[] properties = typeof(T).GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo p in properties)
{
// Get a meaningful property name
string ins = p.PropertyType.Name;
switch(ins)
{
// populate int
case "Int32":
p.SetValue(returnObj, 1 , null);
break;
// populate list
case "IList`1":
var list = new List<string>();
// This will throw the exception 'Parameter count mismatch.'
p.SetValue(returnObj, list, null);
break;
}
}
return returnObj;
}
public class Foo
{
public virtual int someInt {get; set;}
public virtual IList<string> list {get; set;}
}
If you change the Foo to have an indexer property that returns IList on the other hand you get the exception in your question:
public class Foo
{
public virtual int someInt {get; set;}
public virtual IList<string> this[int key]
{
get{ return null; }
set
{
}
}
}
Generates:
TargetParameterCountException: Parameter count mismatch.
Have you verified that the case
"System.Collections.Generic.IList`1[[SomeNamespace.Domain.SomeClass"
is being hit? When I pass in a List, even one created as an IList, GetType() gives me
System.Collections.Generic.List`1[SomeNamespace.Domain.SomeClass]
Would it potentially be more reliable to use:
typeOf(System.Collections.Generic.IList).isAssignableFrom(p.GetType())
I have a set of custom data types that can be used to manipulate basic blocks of data. For example:
MyTypeA Foo = new MyTypeA();
Foo.ParseString(InputString);
if (Foo.Value > 4) return;
Some of these types define read-only properties that describe aspects of the types (for example a name, bit size, etc.).
In my custom framework I want to be able to provide these types to the user for use in their applications but I also want to give the user a list of the available types which they could easily bind to a combobox. My current approach:
public static class DataTypes
{
static ReadOnlyCollection<MyDataType> AvailableTypes;
static DataTypes()
{
List<MyDataType> Types = new List<MyDataType>();
Types.Add(new MyTypeA());
Types.Add(new MyTypeB());
AvailableTypes = new ReadOnlyCollection<MyDataType>(Types);
}
}
What concerns me about this is that the user might obtain a type from the AvailableTypes list (by selecting a combobox item for example) and then use that reference directly rather than creating a clone of the type and using their own reference.
How can I make the list of available types read only so that it doesn't allow any writing or changes to the type instances, forcing the user to create their own clone?
Alternatively is there a better way of providing a list of available types?
Thanks, Andy
Make your custom Type class immutable, same as System.Type and you dont have to worry. A end user can fetch all the data it wants but he can not modify the object in any way.
EDIT: Example of immutable class
Take the following class for instance:
public class ImmutablePerson
{
private readonly string name; //readonly ensures the field can only be set in the object's constructor(s).
private readonly int age;
public ImmutablePerson(string name, int age)
{
this.name = name;
this.age = age;
}
public int Age { get { return this.age; } } //no setter
public string Name { get { return this.name; } }
public ImmutablePerson GrowUp(int years)
{
return new ImmutablePerson(this.name, this.age + years); //does not modify object state, it returns a new object with the new state.
}
}
ImmutablePerson is an immutable class. Once created there is no way a consumer can modify it in any way. Notice that the GrowUp(int years) method does not modify the state of the object at all, it just returns a new instance of ImmutablePerson with the new values.
I hope this helps you understand immutable objects a little better and how they can help you in your particular case.
To get around the problems you've mentioned, you could create a wrapper around your instances, and have the wrapper provide the functionality you require.
For example:
public class TypeDescriptor
{
private MyDataType _dataType;
public TypeDescriptor(MyDataType dataType)
{
_dataType = dataType;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return _dataType.ToString();
}
}
You class would then look something like:
public static class DataTypes
{
public static ReadOnlyCollection<TypeDescriptor> AvailableTypes;
static DataTypes()
{
List<TypeDescriptor> Types = new List<TypeDescriptor>();
Types.Add(new TypeDescriptor(new MyTypeA()));
Types.Add(new TypeDescriptor(new MyTypeB()));
AvailableTypes = new ReadOnlyCollection<TypeDescriptor>(Types);
}
}
Binding to the list and relying on the ToString() will now result in your data types ToString being called.
Create a list of types rather than a list of instances. e.g.
List<Type> Types = new List<Type>();
Types.Add(typeof(MyTypeA));
Types.Add(typeof(MyTypeB()));
etc.
To answer the comment on binding to a drop down list:
MyDropDown.Datasource = Type.Select(t => t.Name);
MyDropDown.DataBind();
This will not use the custom property of your classes but it will give you the simple calss name without all the other guff e.g. MyTypeA
A collection cannot "inject" type modifiers into its members. The collection you have declared is readonly. If you want MyDataType to be readonly you must declare that way.
Somthing like :
EDIT extended class to have a parse method
public class MyDataType
{
private MyDataType()
{
...
}
internal static MyDataType Parse(string someString)
{
MyDataType newOne = new MyDataType();
newOne.Value = ... //int.Parse(someString); ?
}
public int Value { get; private set; }
}
If the collection stays generic there is no readonly constraint.
You would use it like this, following your example.
MyTypeA foo = MyTypeA.Parse(inputString);
if (foo.Value > 4) return;
You probably shouldn't store instances of your types in the list. Instead you can store types. These can be used to create instances:
public static class DataTypes
{
static ReadOnlyCollection<Type> AvailableTypes;
static DataTypes()
{
List<Type> Types = new List<Type>();
Types.Add(typeof(MyTypeA));
Types.Add(typeof(MyTypeB));
AvailableTypes = new ReadOnlyCollection<MyDataType>(Type);
}
}
You can use Activator.CreateInstance to create a concrete instance:
Object myType = Activator.CreateInstance(AvailableTypes[0]);
Unless your types share a common base type you cannot downcast the result and an Object isn't that useful.
Also the use of the term type in your code makes my example a bit confusing as I suggest you store the types of something called type.
You could consider creating and attribute that you then can apply to MyTypeA, MyTypeB etc. Then you can build the AvailableTypes using reflection and the list will always be up to date with your code. E.g. if you add MyTypeC and use the attribute it will automatically be added to the list.
You can also add a display string property to the attribute and use that for display in the combo box. If you want to do that you should store a small object combining the type and the display string in AvailableTypes.
Here is an example. Using generic words like type and data can be confusing so to pick a random name I just use foo. Obviously you should use a more descriptive name.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, Inherited = false)]
sealed class FooAttribute : Attribute {
public FooAttribute(String displayName) {
DisplayName = displayName;
}
public String DisplayName { get; private set; }
}
You can decorate you classes using this attribute:
[Foo("Type A")]
class MyTypeA { ... }
[Foo("Type B")]
class MyTypeB { ... }
For the combobox you want a list of factory objects with a nice ToString implementation (this class can be improved by adding some error handling which I have left out to save space):
class FooFactory {
readonly Type type;
public FooFactory(Type type) {
this.type = type;
DisplayName = ((FooAttribute) Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(
type,
typeof(FooAttribute))
).DisplayName;
}
public String DisplayName { get; private set; }
public Object CreateFoo() {
return Activator.CreateInstance(this.type);
}
public override String ToString() {
return DisplayName;
}
}
Returning Object from CreateFoo isn't very useful but that is a separate issue.
You can build this list at run-time:
var factories = Assembly
.GetExecutingAssembly()
.GetTypes()
.Where(t => Attribute.IsDefined(t, typeof(FooAttribute)))
.Select(t => new FooFactory(t));
I'm not exactly sure of what you want but should something like this be ok ?
public static class DataTypes
{
static Dictionary<string,Type> AvailableTypes
= new Dictionary<string,Type>()
{
{ "MyTypeA", MyTypeA },
{ "MyTypeB", MyTypeB },
...
};
}
That is actually return types instead of sample instances of theses types. Thus you would be sure that only new instances would be created by the user of your class.
Then in the calling code :
MyTypeA a = Activator.CreateInstance(DataTypes.AvailableTypes["MyTypeA"]);
The simple demo below captures what I am trying to do. In the real program, I have to use the object initialiser block since it is reading a list in a LINQ to SQL select expression, and there is a value that that I want to read off the database and store on the object, but the object doesn't have a simple property that I can set for that value. Instead it has an XML data store.
It looks like I can't call an extension method in the object initialiser block, and that I can't attach a property using extension methods.
So am I out of luck with this approach? The only alternative seems to be to persuade the owner of the base class to modify it for this scenario.
I have an existing solution where I subclass BaseDataObject, but this has problems too that don't show up in this simple example. The objects are persisted and restored as BaseDataObject - the casts and tests would get complex.
public class BaseDataObject
{
// internal data store
private Dictionary<string, object> attachedData = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public void SetData(string key, object value)
{
attachedData[key] = value;
}
public object GetData(string key)
{
return attachedData[key];
}
public int SomeValue { get; set; }
public int SomeOtherValue { get; set; }
}
public static class Extensions
{
public static void SetBarValue(this BaseDataObject dataObject,
int barValue)
{
/// Cannot attach a property to BaseDataObject?
dataObject.SetData("bar", barValue);
}
}
public class TestDemo
{
public void CreateTest()
{
// this works
BaseDataObject test1 = new BaseDataObject
{ SomeValue = 3, SomeOtherValue = 4 };
// this does not work - it does not compile
// cannot use extension method in the initialiser block
// cannot make an exension property
BaseDataObject test2 = new BaseDataObject { SomeValue = 3, SomeOtherValue = 4, SetBarValue(5) };
}
}
One of the answers (from mattlant) suggests using a fluent interface style extension method. e.g.:
// fluent interface style
public static BaseDataObject SetBarValueWithReturn(this BaseDataObject dataObject, int barValue)
{
dataObject.SetData("bar", barValue);
return dataObject;
}
// this works
BaseDataObject test3 = (new BaseDataObject { SomeValue = 3, SomeOtherValue = 4 }).SetBarValueWithReturn(5);
But will this work in a LINQ query?
Object Initializers are just syntactic sugar that requires a clever compiler, and as of the current implementation you can't call methods in the initializer.
var x = new BaseDataObject { SomeValue = 3, SomeOtherValue = 4 };
Will get compiler to something like this:
BaseDataObject tempObject = new BaseDataObject();
tempObject.SomeValue = 3;
tempObject.SomeOtherValue = 4;
BaseDataObject x = tempObject;
The difference is that there can't be any synchronization issues. The variable x get's assigned the fully assigned BaseDataObject at once, you can't mess with the object during it's initialization.
You could just call the extension method after the object creation:
var x = new BaseDataObject { SomeValue = 3, SomeOtherValue = 4 };
x.SetBarValue()
You could change SetBarValue to be a property with get/set that can be assigned during initialization:
public int BarValue
{
set
{
//Value should be ignored
}
}
Or, you could subclass / use the facade pattern to add the method onto your object:
public class DataObjectWithBarValue : BaseDataObject
{
public void BarValue
{
set
{
SetData("bar", value);
}
get
{
(int) GetData("bar");
}
}
}
No but you could do this....:
BaseDataObject test2 = (new BaseDataObject { SomeValue = 3, SomeOtherValue = 4}).SetBarValue(5);
ANd have your extension return the object like Linq Does.
EDIT: This was a good thought untill i reread and saw that the base class was developed by a third person: aka you dont have the code. Others here have posted a correct solution.
Even better:
public static T SetBarValue<T>(this T dataObject, int barValue)
where T : BaseDataObject
{
dataObject.SetData("bar", barValue);
return dataObject;
}
and you can use this extension method for derived types of BaseDataObject to chain methods without casts and preserve the real type when inferred into a var field or anonymous type.
static T WithBarValue<T>(this T dataObject, int barValue)
where T : BaseDataObject
{ dataObject.SetData("bar", barValue);
return dataObject;
}
var x = new BaseDataObject{SomeValue=3, OtherValue=4}.WithBarValue(5);
Is extending the class a possibility? Then you could easily add the property you need.
Failing that, you can create a new class that has similar properties that simply call back to a private instance of the class you are interested in.
Right, having learned from the answerers, the short answer to "Is there any way to use an extension method in an object initializer block in C#?" is "No."
The way that I eventually solved the problem that I faced (similar, but more complex that the toy problem that I posed here) was a hybrid approach, as follows:
I created a subclass, e.g.
public class SubClassedDataObject : BaseDataObject
{
public int Bar
{
get { return (int)GetData("bar"); }
set { SetData("bar", value); }
}
}
Which works fine in LINQ, the initialisation block looking like
SubClassedDataObject testSub = new SubClassedDataObject
{ SomeValue = 3, SomeOtherValue = 4, Bar = 5 };
But the reason that I didn't like this approach in the first place is that these objects are put into XML and come back out as BaseDataObject, and casting back was going to be an annoyance, an unnecessary data copy, and would put two copies of the same object in play.
In the rest of the code, I ignored the subclasses and used extension methods:
public static void SetBar(this BaseDataObject dataObject, int barValue)
{
dataObject.SetData("bar", barValue);
}
public static int GetBar(this BaseDataObject dataObject)
{
return (int)dataObject.GetData("bar");
}
And it works nicely.