I have a solution with a "Common" project. This "Common" project is used by other projects in the solution.
Within this "Common" project, I have a "Utilities" folder with several different utility classes, for example, "CsvUtilities.cs" and "JsonUtilities.cs". Assume that I could have many classes like this, and that all methods in these classes are pure functions. Based on this, it would make sense for these classes and methods to be static. Then from other projects I can import the common project and do things like:
CsvUtilities.StaticCsvMethod();
JsonUtilities.StaticJsonMethod();
This works and I think this is relatively normal.
Now the complication is that I want to create a hierarchy structure to access the static utility methods. I want to be able to type "Utilities." in the IDE and have intellisense show all existing utility classes, followed by all methods within that utility class.
So the code that I want would look like this:
Utilities.Csv.StaticCsvMethod();
Utilities.Json.StaticJsonMethod();
I implemented this idea by doing the following:
public static class Utilities
{
public static CsvUtilities Csv { get; } = new CsvUtilities();
public static JsonUtilities Json { get; } = new JsonUtilities();
}
However, there is a big problem with this solution. For this to work, the various utility classes and their methods must no longer be static, which is awkward for utility classes/methods.
I was not able to find an example of someone else doing something like this. What is the most reasonable way for me to use this "Utilities." structure while also keeping the utility classes/methods static?
You can use namespaces (or nested classes) to nest your calls like that. See following example
namespace Utilities
{
public static class Json
{
public static void StaticJsonMethod()
{
// Do something
}
}
}
you can call that method using Utilities.Json.StaticJsonMethod().
To add another level, you just append the "category" to the namespace:
namespace Utilities.Formats
{
public static class Json
{
public static void StaticJsonMethod()
{
// Do something
}
}
}
you can call that method using Utilities.Formats.Json.StaticJsonMethod()
You can have Utilities.Json.StaticJsonMethod(); if you nest static class Json inside Utilities
public static class Utilities
{
public static class Json
{
public static void StaticJsonMethod() { }
}
}
Related
I'm new in Unity. My question isa, is it possible to create function files, without constructor and other stuff? In flash actionscript 3 it's look like this:
package util
{
public function getRandomNumber(minQ:Number = 0, maxQ:Number = Number.MAX_VALUE):Number
{
return minQ + Math.random() * (maxQ - minQ);
}
}
Is it possible to do somthing similar like this?
No, it is impossible in C#. I suggest you learn about Extension Methods and Partial classes.
You can use static classes and singletons as well, but try to avoid the temptation to access it from every part of your project - it will be difficult to modify and refactor it in the future.
You cannot create a global function, but you can create a static method in a static class:
namespace MyNamespace
{
public static class Util
{
public static double GetRandomNumber(..) { ... }
}
}
and use it like
var myNumber = Util.GetRandomNumber(...);
The important part here is that the method is static, which means that you don't need an instance of the class to call it. The static class means that it is impossible to create an instance of that class.
I understand this is only possible with a workaround. But why?
I want to add plugin support to my app. So I designed an abstract class that all future plugins will need to implement. Every plugin must implement a GetVersion() method like in this example code:
public abstract class Plugin
{
public abstract int GetVersion();
}
public class MyPlugin : Plugin
{
public override int GetVersion()
{
return 1;
}
}
This of course works perfectly as long as I instantiate the plugin before calling the GetVersion() method.
But if I want to get the version number of the plugin before creating an instance of it? To check compatibility for example?
public class Program
{
public Program()
{
if (MyPlugin.GetVersion() > 1)
{
PluginLoader.Load(new MyPlugin());
}
}
}
Although it might not answer directly your question "WHY" I think below solution might be usefull in your scenario:
Use assembly version attribute:
Assembly thisAssem = typeof(MyPlugin).Assembly;
AssemblyName thisAssemName = thisAssem.GetName();
Version ver = thisAssemName.Version;
It never can be done by C# because a static method cannot be implemented in derived classes.
Like the workaround, you can create a static factory to create the instance.
public abstract class Plugin
{
public abstract int GetVersion();
}
public class FactoryPlugin<T> where T : Plugin, new()
{
public static int GetVersion()
{
return new T().GetVersion();
}
}
public class Program
{
public Program()
{
if (FactoryPlugin<MyPlugin>.GetVersion() > 1)
{
}
}
}
Consider using the Factory pattern in a way similar to what a COM class factory does. You create two classes, your useful class, and a class factory class. Your class factory class implements IPluginFactory. You package it with your Plugin. The plugin factory has vary simple methods, but one of them allows your Plugin to be created. It's close to what #ThierryV showed, but without static methods. So the process is:
Use whatever you are planning to use to store and instantiate your plugins, but instead of instantiating a plugin, you instantiate the appropriate Plugin Factory
You can have the Plugin factory do what ever you want -- get detailed information about the plugin, allow instantiation of the latest version or a particular version of the plugin - go to town
But, eventually, you use an instance of the factory to instantiate your Plugin.
This is a good place to start: What exactly is a Class Factory?, but Don Box's Essential COM book is where I learned all this stuff, a long time ago in a place far away.
Is there any way to call a function that is inside of a namespace without declaring the class inside c#.
For Example, if I had 2 methods that are the exact same and should be used in all of my C# projects, is there any way to just take those functions and make it into a dll and just say 'Using myTwoMethods' on top and start using the methods without declaring the class?
Right now, I do:
MyClass.MyMethod();
I want to do:
MyMethod();
Thanks,
Rohit
Update for 2015:
No you cannot create "free functions" in C#, but starting with C# 6 you'll be able to call static functions without mentioning the class name. C# 6 will have the "using static" feature allowing this syntax:
static class MyClass {
public static void MyMethod();
}
SomeOtherFile.cs:
using static MyClass;
void SomeMethod() {
MyMethod();
}
You can't declare methods outside of a class, but you can do this using a static helper class in a Class Library Project.
public static class HelperClass
{
public static void HelperMethod() {
// ...
}
}
Usage (after adding a reference to your Class Library).
HelperClass.HelperMethod();
Depends on what type of method we are talking, you could look into extension methods:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx
This allows you to easily add extra functionality to existing objects.
Following on from the suggestion to use extension methods, you could make the method an extension method off of System.Object, from which all classes derive. I would not advocate this, but pertaining to your question this may be an answer.
namespace SomeNamespace
{
public static class Extensions
{
public static void MyMethod(this System.Object o)
{
// Do something here.
}
}
}
You could now write code like MyMethod(); anywhere you have a using SomeNamespace;, unless you are in a static method (then you would have to do Extensions.MyMethod(null)).
Why I'm unable to extend an abstract class. Is there any work around to achieve this?
In silverlight, Enum.GetNames is missing. So, I would like to extend it and have it in my utility assembly. By then, got into this.
The problem here is not that you can't add an extension method to an abstract class (you can - you can add an extension method to any type) - it's that you can't add a static method to a type with extension methods.
Extension methods are static methods that present themselves in C# as instance methods. But they're still static. Adding a static method to a type requires the ability to redefine the type, which you can only do if you have the source code :)
Best bet, if you want this method, is to write your own static and see if you can perhaps rip the code out of reflector.
However, it's entirely possible that it's not there because it's physically not supported in Silverlight (I don't know - I haven't investigate)
EDIT
Following on from your comment - and I hope that I've understood you here - I think what you want to be able to do is something like this (targetting object to prove the point):
public static class ExtraObjectStatics
{
public static void NewStaticMethod()
{
}
}
public class Test
{
public void foo()
{
//You can't do this - the static method doesn't reside in the type 'object'
object.NewStaticMethod();
//You can, of course, do this
ExtraObjectStatics.NewStaticMethod();
}
}
If you think about it - of course you can't inject new static methods into an existing type because, like I said in paragraph two, you have to be able to recompile the underlying type; and there simply is no way around that.
What you can do is (and I don't actually recommend this - but it's an option) create yourself a new type called Enum and place it inside a new namespace:
namespace MySystem
{
public class Enum
{
public static string[] GetNames()
{
//don't actually know how you're going to implement it :)
}
}
}
And now - when you want to use it, what you can't do is this:
using System;
using MySystem;
namespace MyCode
{
public class TestClass
{
public static void Test()
{
Enum.GetNames(); //error: ambiguous between System and MySystem
}
}
}
Because the using in the outermost scope to both 'System' and 'MySystem' will cause the compiler not to be able to resolve the correct Enum type.
What you can do, however, is this:
using System;
namespace MyCode
{
using MySystem; //move using to inside the namespace
public class TestClass
{
public static void Test()
{
//will now work, and will target the 'MySystem.Enum.GetNames()'
//method.
Enum.GetNames();
}
}
}
Now, code within that namespace (within that file only) will always resolve Enum to the one in your namespace because that's the nearest using directive in terms of scope.
So, you can think of this as overriding the whole Enum type for the benefit of a given namespace that includes a using MySystem; in it.
But, it does exactly that - it replaces the existing System.Enum with MySystem.Enum - meaning that you lose all the members of the System.Enum type.
You could get around this by writing wrapper methods in your Enum type around the System.Enum versions - making sure that you fully-qualify the type as System.Enum.
Having looked at the implementation of the GetNames method in Reflector - it relies on internal data that I don't think you're going to be able to build... but I would be very interested to hear if you are actually able to reproduce the method in Silverlight.
public abstract class Foo
{
public abstract void Bar();
}
public static class FooExtensions
{
// most useless extension method evar
public static void CallBar(this Foo me)
{
me.Bar();
}
}
Sure, no problem.
I have some classes inherit from existing Windows Controls like TextBox and DateTimePicker, ..etc
I want to add custom functionalities for these classes like (Read, Alert, ...etc)
these added functionalities are the same in all these classes
The problem is: these classes inherited from difference parents so I can't put my added functionalities in the parent class,
What's the best practice in this case:
repeat the code in each inherited
class
Use a separated class have the
functionalities as Static Methods
with parameter from an interface, implement this interface for the classes and
then pass them.
Use a separated class like the second approach but with Dynamic parameter (which added in C# 4.0)
or other !!
Thanks in advance
I'd consider option 4: composition.
First, define your set of functionality. We'll assume that your partial list is exclusive, so "Read" and "Alert."
Second, create a single class that implements this functionality, something like MyCommonControlBehaviors. I'd prefer this implementation not be static if possible, though, it may be generic.
public MyCommonControlBehaviors
{
public Whatever Read() { /* ... */ }
public void Alert() {}
}
Third, use composition to add an instance of this class to each of your custom control types and expose that functionality through your custom control:
public class MyCustomControl
{
private MyCommonControlBehaviors common; // Composition
public Whatever Read() { return this.common.Read(); }
public void Alert() { this.common.Alert(); }
}
Depending on specifics, you can get creative to the degree necessary. E.g., perhaps your custom behaviors need to interact with private control data. In that case, make your control implement a common ICommonBehaviorHost interface that your common behaviors need. Then pass the control into the behavior class on construction as an instance of ICommonBehaviorHost:
public interface ICommonBehaviorHost
{
void Notify();
}
public class MyCommonControlBehaviors
{
ICommonBehaviorHost hst = null;
public MyCommonControlBehaviors(ICommonBehaviorHost host)
{
this.hst = host;
}
public void Alert() { this.hst.Notify(); } // Calls back into the hosting control
// ...
}
public class MyCustomControl : ICommonBehaviorHost
{
private MyCommonControlBehaviors common = null;
public MyCustomControl() { common = new MyCommonControlBehaviors(this); }
public Whatever Read() { return this.common.Read(); }
public void Alert() { this.common.Alert(); }
void ICommonBehaviorHost.Notify() { /* called by this.common */ }
}
Use Composition instead of Inheritence!
If you must, what I would probably do is create extension methods for each class and then reference the actual coded needed for these in some other object all the extension methods can call.
This way the code isn't duplicated, and the extension methods make it look like the methods should be in the object.
It's the same essentially by creating a static method and doing: Functions.DoSomething(my_Object);
But I always like: my_Object.DoSomething() better in an OO language.
I would suggest defining an interface for the behaviors, and then (to keep from repeating yourself) create extension methods on that interface definition for your shared methods. (Kinda like your second option, only with extension methods instead of totally static methods).