I have been playing around with delegates, events, and anonymous methods. In doing so one point became very clear.
Would it not streamline the process of registering any event methods or delegate functions in the constructor?
My tests shows it works and it prevents you from having to declare them after instantiation (as the constructor of the object does it for you).
In fact, the performance is pretty good. Are there any drawbacks to using the "this" keyword to refer to the current object when constructing / instantiating the object?
This seems to make a lot of sense to me as all the events would be wired up on instantiation.
Are there any areas this might be an issue?
Example:
//Constructor
public SayHello()
{
_name = "Unnamed";
_isUpdated = false;
// Register event handler via lambda (ananymous method shorthand)
this.NameChanged += (object sender, EventArgs e) => { Console.WriteLine(e.message)); };
}
There are a couple of potential problems with this approach. First, on the more general side, one should usually favour using method overrides over subscribing to self-published events for performance reasons. Obviously, this isn't possible if the event is exposed by an externally sourced based class that exposes an event without a corresponding overridable method. However, subscribing to self-published events should be an approach of last resort, not a default approach.
The second potential problem is more serious, but it has to do with what the code triggered by the event does, not which object exposes the event. For example, consider the following constructor:
public Foo(Bar bar)
{
bar.SomeEvent += (s, e) => this.DoSomething();
}
If bar fires SomeEvent on another thread, your Foo instance's DoSomething method could be called before the instance has been fully initialized. This is a fairly well-documented problem in the Java space (see, for example, http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp0618/index.html), but coverage is much sparser for C#/.NET. http://joeduffyblog.com/2010/06/27/on-partiallyconstructed-objects/ provides some detailed coverage for .NET, but it might be more than you wanted to know...
I don't think that there are any issues. It's up to you to do it in that way. You can use the object itself in its constructor. It would work too, if you omitt this.
I have been playing around with delegates, events, and anonymous methods. In doing so one point became very clear.
Would it not streamline the process of registering any event methods or delegate functions in the constructor?
My tests shows it works and it prevents you from having to declare them after instantiation (as the constructor of the object does it for you).
In fact, the performance is pretty good. Are there any drawbacks to using the "this" keyword to refer to the current object when constructing / instantiating the object?
This seems to make a lot of sense to me as all the events would be wired up on instantiation.
Are there any areas this might be an issue?
Example:
//Constructor
public SayHello()
{
_name = "Unnamed";
_isUpdated = false;
// Register event handler via lambda (ananymous method shorthand)
this.NameChanged += (object sender, EventArgs e) => { Console.WriteLine(e.message)); };
}
There are a couple of potential problems with this approach. First, on the more general side, one should usually favour using method overrides over subscribing to self-published events for performance reasons. Obviously, this isn't possible if the event is exposed by an externally sourced based class that exposes an event without a corresponding overridable method. However, subscribing to self-published events should be an approach of last resort, not a default approach.
The second potential problem is more serious, but it has to do with what the code triggered by the event does, not which object exposes the event. For example, consider the following constructor:
public Foo(Bar bar)
{
bar.SomeEvent += (s, e) => this.DoSomething();
}
If bar fires SomeEvent on another thread, your Foo instance's DoSomething method could be called before the instance has been fully initialized. This is a fairly well-documented problem in the Java space (see, for example, http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp0618/index.html), but coverage is much sparser for C#/.NET. http://joeduffyblog.com/2010/06/27/on-partiallyconstructed-objects/ provides some detailed coverage for .NET, but it might be more than you wanted to know...
I don't think that there are any issues. It's up to you to do it in that way. You can use the object itself in its constructor. It would work too, if you omitt this.
When designing a derived class, are there [dis]advantages to adding a handler to a base class event in the ctor vs overriding the OnEventName() method and adding some behaviour (as well as calling the base method), if one doesn't need to change the base method and doesn't care in what order things happen, but only wants a reusable component with a little extra behaviour?
base class:
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public event EventHandler SomeEvent;
protected void OnSomeEvent(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// do some stuff
}
}
option A:
public class DerivedA
{
protected override void OnSomeEvent(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// do some other stuff
base.OnSomeEvent(sender, e);
}
}
option B:
public class DerivedB
{
public DerivedB()
{
SomeEvent += (o,e) => { // do some other stuff };
}
}
There aren't any significant advantages/disadvantages to either approach.
There's a few differences between subscribing to an event vs. overriding a base-class method. For example, if you want some code to run before or after all other handlers, you should really override the OnSomeEvent method, as there's no way to gaurantee that otherwise. But you indicate you don't really care about this.
In general, overriding a method is something that requires a good understanding of the behavior of the base class to ensure that you don't inadvertantly break anything. Subscribing to an event is a less intrusive extensions, and is something that (presumably) the base class designer has planned for.
Sometimes, people argue that performance is better when overriding - but I don't buy this argument. Performance only matters when it matters. The difference here is likely so negligible, that one should be more concerned with simplicity, correctness, and easy of maintenance over performance.
You've already mentioned the order in which things are called. Some other things which admittedly don't happen all that often, but might be significant (based on the fact that the base class controls how the event handlers are invoked):
Event handlers might be called on a different thread;
Under some circumstances, the base class might choose not to call event handlers at all;
The base class might catch specific types of exceptions thrown by handlers; exceptions thrown by your handler might be unintentionally swallowed.
In general, I tend to see events as being there exclusively for a class's users, with a well-designed class having virtual On... methods for subclasses.
I understand the purpose of events, especially within the context of creating user interfaces. I think this is the prototype for creating an event:
public void EventName(object sender, EventArgs e);
What do event handlers do, why are they needed, and how do I to create one?
To understand event handlers, you need to understand delegates. In C#, you can think of a delegate as a pointer (or a reference) to a method. This is useful because the pointer can be passed around as a value.
The central concept of a delegate is its signature, or shape. That is (1) the return type and (2) the input arguments. For example, if we create a delegate void MyDelegate(object sender, EventArgs e), it can only point to methods which return void, and take an object and EventArgs. Kind of like a square hole and a square peg. So we say these methods have the same signature, or shape, as the delegate.
So knowing how to create a reference to a method, let's think about the purpose of events: we want to cause some code to be executed when something happens elsewhere in the system - or "handle the event". To do this, we create specific methods for the code we want to be executed. The glue between the event and the methods to be executed are the delegates. The event must internally store a "list" of pointers to the methods to call when the event is raised.* Of course, to be able to call a method, we need to know what arguments to pass to it! We use the delegate as the "contract" between the event and all the specific methods that will be called.
So the default EventHandler (and many like it) represents a specific shape of method (again, void/object-EventArgs). When you declare an event, you are saying which shape of method (EventHandler) that event will invoke, by specifying a delegate:
//This delegate can be used to point to methods
//which return void and take a string.
public delegate void MyEventHandler(string foo);
//This event can cause any method which conforms
//to MyEventHandler to be called.
public event MyEventHandler SomethingHappened;
//Here is some code I want to be executed
//when SomethingHappened fires.
void HandleSomethingHappened(string foo)
{
//Do some stuff
}
//I am creating a delegate (pointer) to HandleSomethingHappened
//and adding it to SomethingHappened's list of "Event Handlers".
myObj.SomethingHappened += new MyEventHandler(HandleSomethingHappened);
//To raise the event within a method.
SomethingHappened("bar");
(*This is the key to events in .NET and peels away the "magic" - an event is really, under the covers, just a list of methods of the same "shape". The list is stored where the event lives. When the event is "raised", it's really just "go through this list of methods and call each one, using these values as the parameters". Assigning an event handler is just a prettier, easier way of adding your method to this list of methods to be called).
C# knows two terms, delegate and event. Let's start with the first one.
Delegate
A delegate is a reference to a method. Just like you can create a reference to an instance:
MyClass instance = myFactory.GetInstance();
You can use a delegate to create an reference to a method:
Action myMethod = myFactory.GetInstance;
Now that you have this reference to a method, you can call the method via the reference:
MyClass instance = myMethod();
But why would you? You can also just call myFactory.GetInstance() directly. In this case you can. However, there are many cases to think about where you don't want the rest of the application to have knowledge of myFactory or to call myFactory.GetInstance() directly.
An obvious one is if you want to be able to replace myFactory.GetInstance() into myOfflineFakeFactory.GetInstance() from one central place (aka factory method pattern).
Factory method pattern
So, if you have a TheOtherClass class and it needs to use the myFactory.GetInstance(), this is how the code will look like without delegates (you'll need to let TheOtherClass know about the type of your myFactory):
TheOtherClass toc;
//...
toc.SetFactory(myFactory);
class TheOtherClass
{
public void SetFactory(MyFactory factory)
{
// set here
}
}
If you'd use delegates, you don't have to expose the type of my factory:
TheOtherClass toc;
//...
Action factoryMethod = myFactory.GetInstance;
toc.SetFactoryMethod(factoryMethod);
class TheOtherClass
{
public void SetFactoryMethod(Action factoryMethod)
{
// set here
}
}
Thus, you can give a delegate to some other class to use, without exposing your type to them. The only thing you're exposing is the signature of your method (how many parameters you have and such).
"Signature of my method", where did I hear that before? O yes, interfaces!!! interfaces describe the signature of a whole class. Think of delegates as describing the signature of only one method!
Another large difference between an interface and a delegate is that when you're writing your class, you don't have to say to C# "this method implements that type of delegate". With interfaces, you do need to say "this class implements that type of an interface".
Further, a delegate reference can (with some restrictions, see below) reference multiple methods (called MulticastDelegate). This means that when you call the delegate, multiple explicitly-attached methods will be executed. An object reference can always only reference to one object.
The restrictions for a MulticastDelegate are that the (method/delegate) signature should not have any return value (void) and the keywords out and ref is not used in the signature. Obviously, you can't call two methods that return a number and expect them to return the same number. Once the signature complies, the delegate is automatically a MulticastDelegate.
Event
Events are just properties (like the get;set; properties to instance fields) which expose subscription to the delegate from other objects. These properties, however, don't support get;set;. Instead, they support add; remove;
So you can have:
Action myField;
public event Action MyProperty
{
add { myField += value; }
remove { myField -= value; }
}
Usage in UI (WinForms,WPF,UWP So on)
So, now we know that a delegate is a reference to a method and that we can have an event to let the world know that they can give us their methods to be referenced from our delegate, and we are a UI button, then: we can ask anyone who is interested in whether I was clicked, to register their method with us (via the event we exposed). We can use all those methods that were given to us and reference them by our delegate. And then, we'll wait and wait.... until a user comes and clicks on that button, then we'll have enough reason to invoke the delegate. And because the delegate references all those methods given to us, all those methods will be invoked. We don't know what those methods do, nor we know which class implements those methods. All we do care about is that someone was interested in us being clicked, and gave us a reference to a method that complied with our desired signature.
Java
Languages like Java don't have delegates. They use interfaces instead. The way they do that is to ask anyone who is interested in 'us being clicked', to implement a certain interface (with a certain method we can call), then give us the whole instance that implements the interface. We keep a list of all objects implementing this interface and can call their 'certain method we can call' whenever we get clicked.
That is actually the declaration for an event handler - a method that will get called when an event is fired. To create an event, you'd write something like this:
public class Foo
{
public event EventHandler MyEvent;
}
And then you can subscribe to the event like this:
Foo foo = new Foo();
foo.MyEvent += new EventHandler(this.OnMyEvent);
With OnMyEvent() defined like this:
private void OnMyEvent(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show("MyEvent fired!");
}
Whenever Foo fires off MyEvent, then your OnMyEvent handler will be called.
You don't always have to use an instance of EventArgs as the second parameter. If you want to include additional information, you can use a class derived from EventArgs (EventArgs is the base by convention). For example, if you look at some of the events defined on Control in WinForms, or FrameworkElement in WPF, you can see examples of events that pass additional information to the event handlers.
Here is a code example which may help:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
namespace Event_Example
{
// First we have to define a delegate that acts as a signature for the
// function that is ultimately called when the event is triggered.
// You will notice that the second parameter is of MyEventArgs type.
// This object will contain information about the triggered event.
public delegate void MyEventHandler(object source, MyEventArgs e);
// This is a class which describes the event to the class that receives it.
// An EventArgs class must always derive from System.EventArgs.
public class MyEventArgs : EventArgs
{
private string EventInfo;
public MyEventArgs(string Text) {
EventInfo = Text;
}
public string GetInfo() {
return EventInfo;
}
}
// This next class is the one which contains an event and triggers it
// once an action is performed. For example, lets trigger this event
// once a variable is incremented over a particular value. Notice the
// event uses the MyEventHandler delegate to create a signature
// for the called function.
public class MyClass
{
public event MyEventHandler OnMaximum;
private int i;
private int Maximum = 10;
public int MyValue
{
get { return i; }
set
{
if(value <= Maximum) {
i = value;
}
else
{
// To make sure we only trigger the event if a handler is present
// we check the event to make sure it's not null.
if(OnMaximum != null) {
OnMaximum(this, new MyEventArgs("You've entered " +
value.ToString() +
", but the maximum is " +
Maximum.ToString()));
}
}
}
}
}
class Program
{
// This is the actual method that will be assigned to the event handler
// within the above class. This is where we perform an action once the
// event has been triggered.
static void MaximumReached(object source, MyEventArgs e) {
Console.WriteLine(e.GetInfo());
}
static void Main(string[] args) {
// Now lets test the event contained in the above class.
MyClass MyObject = new MyClass();
MyObject.OnMaximum += new MyEventHandler(MaximumReached);
for(int x = 0; x <= 15; x++) {
MyObject.MyValue = x;
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
Just to add to the existing great answers here - building on the code in the accepted one, which uses a delegate void MyEventHandler(string foo)...
Because the compiler knows the delegate type of the SomethingHappened event, this:
myObj.SomethingHappened += HandleSomethingHappened;
Is totally equivalent to:
myObj.SomethingHappened += new MyEventHandler(HandleSomethingHappened);
And handlers can also be unregistered with -= like this:
// -= removes the handler from the event's list of "listeners":
myObj.SomethingHappened -= HandleSomethingHappened;
For completeness' sake, raising the event can be done like this, only in the class that owns the event:
//Firing the event is done by simply providing the arguments to the event:
var handler = SomethingHappened; // thread-local copy of the event
if (handler != null) // the event is null if there are no listeners!
{
handler("Hi there!");
}
The thread-local copy of the handler is needed to make sure the invocation is thread-safe - otherwise a thread could go and unregister the last handler for the event immediately after we checked if it was null, and we would have a "fun" NullReferenceException there.
C# 6 introduced a nice short hand for this pattern. It uses the null propagation operator.
SomethingHappened?.Invoke("Hi there!");
My understanding of the events is;
Delegate:
A variable to hold reference to method / methods to be executed. This makes it possible to pass around methods like a variable.
Steps for creating and calling the event:
The event is an instance of a delegate
Since an event is an instance of a delegate, then we have to first define the delegate.
Assign the method / methods to be executed when the event is fired (Calling the delegate)
Fire the event (Call the delegate)
Example:
using System;
namespace test{
class MyTestApp{
//The Event Handler declaration
public delegate void EventHandler();
//The Event declaration
public event EventHandler MyHandler;
//The method to call
public void Hello(){
Console.WriteLine("Hello World of events!");
}
public static void Main(){
MyTestApp TestApp = new MyTestApp();
//Assign the method to be called when the event is fired
TestApp.MyHandler = new EventHandler(TestApp.Hello);
//Firing the event
if (TestApp.MyHandler != null){
TestApp.MyHandler();
}
}
}
}
//This delegate can be used to point to methods
//which return void and take a string.
public delegate void MyDelegate(string foo);
//This event can cause any method which conforms
//to MyEventHandler to be called.
public event MyDelegate MyEvent;
//Here is some code I want to be executed
//when SomethingHappened fires.
void MyEventHandler(string foo)
{
//Do some stuff
}
//I am creating a delegate (pointer) to HandleSomethingHappened
//and adding it to SomethingHappened's list of "Event Handlers".
myObj.MyEvent += new MyDelegate (MyEventHandler);
publisher: where the events happen. Publisher should specify which delegate the class is using and generate necessary arguments, pass those arguments and itself to the delegate.
subscriber: where the response happen. Subscriber should specify methods to respond to events. These methods should take the same type of arguments as the delegate. Subscriber then add this method to publisher's delegate.
Therefore, when the event happen in publisher, delegate will receive some event arguments (data, etc), but publisher has no idea what will happen with all these data. Subscribers can create methods in their own class to respond to events in publisher's class, so that subscribers can respond to publisher's events.
I recently made an example of how to use events in c#, and posted it on my blog. I tried to make it as clear as possible, with a very simple example. In case it might help anyone, here it is: http://www.konsfik.com/using-events-in-csharp/
It includes description and source code (with lots of comments), and it mainly focuses on a proper (template - like) usage of events and event handlers.
Some key points are:
Events are like "sub - types of delegates", only more constrained (in a good way). In fact an event's declaration always includes a delegate (EventHandlers are a type of delegate).
Event Handlers are specific types of delegates (you may think of them as a template), which force the user to create events which have a specific "signature". The signature is of the format: (object sender, EventArgs eventarguments).
You may create your own sub-class of EventArgs, in order to include any type of information the event needs to convey. It is not necessary to use EventHandlers when using events. You may completely skip them and use your own kind of delegate in their place.
One key difference between using events and delegates, is that events can only be invoked from within the class that they were declared in, even though they may be declared as public. This is a very important distinction, because it allows your events to be exposed so that they are "connected" to external methods, while at the same time they are protected from "external misuse".
Another thing to know about, in some cases, you have to use the Delegates/Events when you need a low level of coupling !
If you want to use a component in several place in application, you need to make a component with low level of coupling and the specific unconcerned LOGIC must be delegated OUTSIDE of your component ! This ensures that you have a decoupled system and a cleaner code.
In SOLID principle this is the "D", (Dependency inversion principle).
Also known as "IoC", Inversion of control.
You can make "IoC" with Events, Delegates and DI (Dependency Injection).
It's easy to access a method in a child class. But more difficult to access a method in a parent class from child. You have to pass the parent reference to the child ! (or use DI with Interface)
Delegates/Events allows us to communicate from the child to the parent without reference !
In this diagram above, I do not use Delegate/Event and the parent component B has to have a reference of the parent component A to execute the unconcerned business logic in method of A. (high level of coupling)
With this approach, I would have to put all the references of all components that use component B ! :(
In this diagram above, I use Delegate/Event and the component B doesn't have to known A. (low level of coupling)
And you can use your component B anywhere in your application !
I agree with KE50 except that I view the 'event' keyword as an alias for 'ActionCollection' since the event holds a collection of actions to be performed (ie. the delegate).
using System;
namespace test{
class MyTestApp{
//The Event Handler declaration
public delegate void EventAction();
//The Event Action Collection
//Equivalent to
// public List<EventAction> EventActions=new List<EventAction>();
//
public event EventAction EventActions;
//An Action
public void Hello(){
Console.WriteLine("Hello World of events!");
}
//Another Action
public void Goodbye(){
Console.WriteLine("Goodbye Cruel World of events!");
}
public static void Main(){
MyTestApp TestApp = new MyTestApp();
//Add actions to the collection
TestApp.EventActions += TestApp.Hello;
TestApp.EventActions += TestApp.Goodbye;
//Invoke all event actions
if (TestApp.EventActions!= null){
//this peculiar syntax hides the invoke
TestApp.EventActions();
//using the 'ActionCollection' idea:
// foreach(EventAction action in TestApp.EventActions)
// action.Invoke();
}
}
}
}
Great technical answers in the post! I have nothing technically to add to that.
One of the main reasons why new features appear in languages and software in general is marketing or company politics! :-) This must not be under estimated!
I think this applies to certain extend to delegates and events too! i find them useful and add value to the C# language, but on the other hand the Java language decided not to use them! they decided that whatever you are solving with delegates you can already solve with existing features of the language i.e. interfaces e.g.
Now around 2001 Microsoft released the .NET framework and the C# language as a competitor solution to Java, so it was good to have NEW FEATURES that Java doesn't have.
DELEGATES, EVENTS(EVENT HANDLERS/EVENT LISTENERS), CONCEPTS(MULTICASTING/BROADCASTING), ACTION & FUNC
This will be a long one but its the simplest explanation, the problem this is such a nuisance of a topic is because people are just using different words to explain the same thing
First of all, you should know a few things
DELEGATES: It's nothing but a list of methods, why create a list? because when your code is being executed, that list is taken and every method there is executed one by one, just don't listen to textbook definitions take this and you will be all right
also called :
a pointer to a function
a wrapper for a method that can send and receive methods just like a variable
to create a delegate you go
[[access modifier] delegate [return type] [delegate name]([parameters])]
example: public delegate int demo(int a);
now to execute all these methods stored in a list called delegate, you go
1. demo.invoke(a);
2. demo(a); ..... both are valid
using the dot and explicitly saying invoke shines in async programming where you use beginInvoke, but that is out of the scope of this topic
there is one more thing called "Creating an object of the delegate/instantiate Delegate" which is pretty much as it sounds but just to avoid confusion it goes like (for the above example )
example : demo del = new demo(); (or) Public demo del = null;
to add any method to the list called delegate you go += and you also need to remove it once the "requirements of the methods are met" you go -=
(requirements of the methods are met mean you no longer need the method to be active or aka "listening") if you don't remove it, it could cause a "memory leak" meaning your computers ram will be eaten alive, technically allocated memory will not be released
example: say there is a method
public int calculate (int c)
to add this method to delegate you go
1. del = calculate;
2. del += calculate; .... all are valid
to remove
del -= calculate
first of all notice the similarities between the delegate and the method, the return type(output) and the input/parameters are the same, and that is a rule you just cannot add any random or a bunch of methods in a delegate it needs to follow the input-output rule
now why are there 2 different ways to do one thing, the only thing different is the assignment operators (+, =), this introduces a new topic called
EVENTS
which is nothing but a constrained version of a Delegate, It's still a List of methods don't confuse when people explain these terminologies, they change the name, so stick with this to understand
what is the constraint? you cannot do this del = calculate;
what's the harm in it, say a bunch of methods are added to the Delegate(List), you do that 👆 all are wiped out and only a single method "calculate" remains, so to prevent that Events are used,
Event Syntax
Public Event demo del = null;
One more thing you cannot do with events is invoke the delegate directly like demo.invoke since its public it can be accessed and invoked but with events, it can't
now you just add the methods to the event (a special type of delegate)
when to use an event vs a delegate, depends on your situation but pragmatically events are popular
few more keywords
MULTICASTING: nothing but adding more than one method to a delegate
BROADCASTING: adding more than one method to an event
PUBLISHER: the one that executes the method (term used in broadcasting), only a single entity
SUBSCRIBER: The methods that are being executed, can be multiple
LISTENER: the same thing as a subscriber but the term is used in multicasting
EVENT HANDLER: same thing as a subscriber/event listener so what the difference? it's basically the same thing, some say an eventlistener detect for the event to occur and the event handler "handles" or execute the code, ITS THE SAME THING PRACTICALLY!
action and func are just delegates that have been created and instantiated so 2 lines of code in a word, the difference is just in return types
ACTION: does not return anything while taking 0 or more than 1 input
FUNC: returns one thing and takes in parameters
if you don't do good with reading here is the best video on this topic
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFt_AvWsXl0dliMtpZC8Qd_ru26785Ih_
When should one do the following?
class Foo : Control
{
protected override void OnClick(EventArgs e)
{
// new code here
}
}
As opposed to this?
class Foo : Control
{
public Foo()
{
this.Click += new EventHandler(Clicked);
}
private void Clicked(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// code
}
}
Overriding rather than attaching a delegate will result in more efficient code, so it is generally recommended that you always do this where possible. For more information see this MSDN article. Here is a pertinent quote:
The protected OnEventName method also
allows derived classes to override the
event without attaching a delegate to
it. A derived class must always call
the OnEventName method of the base
class to ensure that registered
delegates receive the event.
The event is for external subscribers. When you are deriving some control, always override the OnEvent method instead of subscribing to the event. This way, you can be sure when your code is called, because the actual event is fired when you call base.OnEvent(), and you can call this before your code, after your code, in the middle of your code or not at all. You can then also react on return values from the event (i.e. changed properties in the EventArgs object).
Be aware that (at least in .NET 2.0) I have found a few places in the framework (specifically in the DataTable class) where the OnFoo method is only called when the corresponding Foo event has been handled! This contravenes the framework design guidelines but we're stuck with it.
I've gotten around it by handling the event with a dummy handler somewhere in the class, eg:
public class MyDataTable : DataTable
{
public override void EndInit()
{
base.EndInit();
this.TableNewRow += delegate(object sender, DataTableNewRowEventArgs e) { };
}
protected override void OnTableNewRow(DataTableNewRowEventArgs e)
{
base.OnTableNewRow(e);
// your code here
}
}
Subscribing to the event is intended for a control to monitor events on a different control. For monitoring your own event OnClick is fine. Note, however, that Control.OnClick handles firing those subscribed events, so be sure to call it in your override.
If you override like Kent Boogaart comments you'll need to be carefull to call back base.OnClick to allow event suscriptions to be called
An inherited class should never subscribe to it's own events, or it's base class' events.
Now, if a class has an instance of another, different, class in it, then it can consume that class' events, and determine if it should raise it's own event or not.
For example, I rolled out a MRU List class recently. In it, there was a number of ToolStripMenuItem controls, whose click event I consumed. After that click event was consumed, I then raised my class's event. (see that source code here)
It is worth noting that there are some corner cases where it only works with handlers and not with OnEvent overrides. One such example-
Why style is not applied when I'm removing StartupUri in WPF?