The below code does what I would like it to do. The code in the Main method looks and behaves exactly as desired. However, it would be preferable if the class UserMenu, Home and DropdownMenu2 could only be used by the HeaderNavigationMenu to protect other developers from trying to used them outside of the HeaderNavigationMenu class. Additionally most articles frown upon making everything public.
Question:
Is the design patter being used below appropriate or is there something better and more acceptable to use in this scenario?
Edit: The reason for this design.
I wanted the end user of HeaderNavigationMenu to just be able to use the dot notation to get a list of available options. This Architecture accomplishes this goal (ex: navigationMenu.DropdownMenu2.SelectOption3())
Wanted anyone else who eventually might need to edit the code to understand that the classes UserMenu, Home and DropDownMenu2 where very specifically designed to be implemented by HeaderNavigationMenu class.
public class HeaderNavigationMenu
{
public HeaderNavigationMenu()
{
UsersMenu = new UsersMenu();
Home = new Home();
DropdownMenu2 = new DropdownMenu2();
}
public UsersMenu UsersMenu { get; set; }
public Home Home { get; set; }
public DropdownMenu2 DropdownMenu2 { get; set; }
}
public class UsersMenu
{
...
}
public class Home
{
...
}
public class DropdownMenu2
{
public void SelectOption3()
{
...
}
...
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
HeaderNavigationMenu navigationMenu = new HeaderNavigationMenu();
navigationMenu.DropdownMenu2.SelectOption3();
// The following code is an example of undesired capability;
// prefer if Home class could only be
// used by HeaderNavigationMenu class
Home home = new Home();
}
Restrict access to the class constructors. If they are declared as "internal" then the classes may only be created by your code.
If you're looking to protect against the instantiation of UsersMenu, DropdownMenu2, and Home from outside HeaderNavigationMenu but still within the same project as HeaderNavigationMenu then there is a neat trick that can achieve this behavior. You can use public nested classes with private constructors which statically initialize their own factory methods. The basic template for this would be:
public class Outer{
private static Func<Inner> _innerFactory;
public Inner ExposedInner {get; private set;}
public Outer(){
// Force the static initializer to run.
System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor(typeof(Inner).TypeHandle);
// Call the newly created factory method instead of a regular constructor.
ExposedInner = _innerFactory();
}
public class Inner {
static Inner(){
// Initialize Outer's static factory method.
_innerFactory = () => new Inner();
}
// Inner cannot be instantiated (without reflection) because its constructor is private.
private Inner(){}
// This method is now exposed for anyone to use.
public void DoStuff(){ Console.WriteLine("Did stuff"); }
}
}
Here's this concept implemented in your example:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
HeaderNavigationMenu navigationMenu = new HeaderNavigationMenu();
navigationMenu.DropdownMenu2.SelectOption3();
// This line will no longer work because the constructors
// for the inner classes are private.
HeaderNavigationMenu.HomeImpl home = new HeaderNavigationMenu.HomeImpl();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class HeaderNavigationMenu
{
//Private factory methods that are statically initialized
private static Func<UsersMenuImpl> _createUsers;
private static Func<DropdownMenu2Impl> _createDropdown;
private static Func<HomeImpl> _createHome;
public HeaderNavigationMenu()
{
//Force the static constructors to run
System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor(typeof(UsersMenuImpl).TypeHandle);
System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor(typeof(HomeImpl).TypeHandle);
System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor(typeof(DropdownMenu2Impl).TypeHandle);
UsersMenu = _createUsers();
Home = _createHome();
DropdownMenu2 = _createDropdown();
}
public UsersMenuImpl UsersMenu { get; set; }
public HomeImpl Home { get; set; }
public DropdownMenu2Impl DropdownMenu2 { get; set; }
public class UsersMenuImpl
{
//Static constructor to make the class factory method
static UsersMenuImpl()
{
_createUsers = () => new UsersMenuImpl();
}
private UsersMenuImpl() { }
}
public class HomeImpl
{
//Static constructor to make the class factory method
static HomeImpl()
{
_createHome = () => new HomeImpl();
}
private HomeImpl() { }
}
public class DropdownMenu2Impl
{
//Static constructor to make the class factory method
static DropdownMenu2Impl()
{
_createDropdown = () => new DropdownMenu2Impl();
}
private DropdownMenu2Impl() { }
public void SelectOption3()
{
}
}
}
With this, you will still be able to use all the public properties of the inner classes however no one will be able to instantiate the inner classes from outside HeaderNavigationMenu and only HeaderNavigationMenu has access to the factory methods.
I don't really understand what your use case is and I've never coded like this but one way of only exposing the required behaviour of HeaderNavigationMenu would be to make the classes internal and the variables private and then expose only the SelectOption3() method, as below.
If you uncomment the line
//Home home = new Home();
you will get a compiler error.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
HeaderNavigationMenu navigationMenu = new HeaderNavigationMenu();
navigationMenu.DropdownMenu2SelectOption3();
// The following code is an example of undesired capability;
// prefer if Home class could only be
// used by HeaderNavigationMenu class
//Home home = new Home();
}
}
public class HeaderNavigationMenu
{
UsersMenu usersMenu;
Home home;
DropdownMenu2 dropdownMenu2;
public HeaderNavigationMenu()
{
usersMenu = new UsersMenu();
home = new Home();
dropdownMenu2 = new DropdownMenu2();
}
public void DropdownMenu2SelectOption3()
{
dropdownMenu2.SelectOption3();
}
class UsersMenu
{
}
class Home
{
}
class DropdownMenu2
{
public void SelectOption3()
{
}
}
}
You could make UsersMenu, Home, and DropdownMenu2 public abstract classes. Then have private classes nested inside of HeaderNavigationMenu which extend the public abstract versions.
public abstract class UsersMenu
{
}
public abstract class Home
{
}
public abstract class DropdownMenu2
{
public void SelectOption3()
{
// Code for SelectOption3...
}
}
public class HeaderNavigationMenu
{
public HeaderNavigationMenu()
{
UsersMenu = new UsersMenuImpl();
Home = new HomeImpl();
DropdownMenu2 = new DropdownMenu2Impl();
}
public UsersMenu UsersMenu { get; }
public Home Home { get; }
public DropdownMenu2 DropdownMenu2 { get; }
private class UsersMenuImpl : UsersMenu
{
}
private class HomeImpl : Home
{
}
private class DropdownMenu2Impl : DropdownMenu2
{
}
}
Fellow developers can see and use the UsersMenu, Home, and DropdownMenu2 abstract classes, but cannot create instances of them. Only HeaderNavigationMenu can.
Of course, another developer could always create their own classes deriving from the public abstract ones, but there is only so much you can do. UsersMenu, Home, and DropdownMenu2 have to be public in order to be public properties.
Related
I seem to have some trouble understanding generics in c#.
Basically i have a base class called ConfigWorker and a bunch of sub classes which should all use their own config class deriving from BaseConfig.
The ConfigWorker class i want to use should be determined dynamically during runtime given the name of the class as a parameter.
I can instantiate the sub class given it's name, but no matter what i try, i can't get the casting to a sensible base class to work.
Here's my code:
namespace DocumentHandler
{
public class BaseConfig
{
}
public class ConfigWorker<T> where T : BaseConfig
{
public virtual void Work(T options)
{
}
}
public class Worker1 : ConfigWorker<Worker1.Config>
{
public class Config : BaseConfig
{
public string test = "";
}
public override void Work(Config options)
{
//do something
}
}
public class Worker2 : ConfigWorker<Worker2.Config>
{
public class Config : BaseConfig
{
public string test = "";
}
public override void Work(Config options)
{
//do something else
}
}
public class Test
{
public static BaseConfig config;
public static void test()
{
(Activator
.CreateInstance(Type.GetType("DocumentHandler.Worker2"))
as ConfigWorker<BaseConfig>)
.Work(config);
}
}
}
The crucial line is
(Activator
.CreateInstance(Type.GetType("DocumentHandler.Worker2"))
as ConfigWorker<BaseConfig>)
.Work(config);
The casting to ConfigWorker<BaseConfig> returns null, as the cast can not be performed.
Trying to simply cast to ConfigWorker does not compile as the type parameter is missing.
Anything else i can try? CreateInstance obviously just returns an object and i need to cast that to be able to call the Work method
Any help is appreciated.
An instance of Worker2 is not a ConfigWorker<BaseConfig>! It's a ConfigWorker<Worker2.Config>. These are two totally different types. Generic classes are invariant. Only interfaces and delegates can be co- or contra-variant.
In your example, ConfigWorker is even contra-variant in T, meaning you use T as the type of an input parameter to a method. So what you try is actually dangerous.
Imagine your line would work: you get an variable of type ConfigWorker<BaseConfig>, so you could rely on this instance having a method Work() which takes a BaseConfig (or something derived from it) as argument. So nothing could stop you from calling it like
worker.Work(new Worker1.Config());
Compiles fine. But wait a moment! Didn't your line state that worker is a Worker2? Worker2 instances can only handle Worker2.Config arguments!
You completely loose type safety this way (well, you would if it was allowed).
There is a flaw in your class design.
This looks like a good problem that factory pattern has good good solution for.
Here is a simplified solution
namespace DocumentHandler
{
public interface IBaseConfig
{
}
public class ConfiManager : IBaseConfig
{
}
public abstract class WorkerFactory
{
private readonly IBaseConfig _config;
protected WorkerFactory(IBaseConfig config)
{
this._config = config;
}
public virtual void Work()
{
}
}
public class Worker1 : WorkerFactory
{
private readonly IBaseConfig _config;
public Worker1(IBaseConfig config):base(config)
{
_config = config;
}
public string test = "";
public override void Work()
{
//do something
}
}
public class Worker2 : WorkerFactory
{
private readonly IBaseConfig _config;
public string test = "";
public Worker2(IBaseConfig config):base(config)
{
this._config = config;
}
public override void Work()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello world");
}
}
public class Test
{
public static IBaseConfig config = new ConfiManager();
public static void test()
{
WorkerFactory worker =
(Worker2) Activator.CreateInstance(Type.GetType("DocumentHandler.Worker2"), config);
worker.Work();
}
}
}
In C# a static class can not derive from any other class besides object.
Currently I have this base class:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static string UsedSource {get; set;}
public static Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
Now, depending on which class I'm using, I want to change UsedSource.
// this does not work
internal static class ModuleA : BaseModule
{
static ModuleA(){
UsedSource = "A" // just an example
}
}
// this does not work
internal static class ModuleB : BaseModule
{
static ModuleB(){
UsedSource = "B" // just an example
}
}
Supposed to be called like this
ModuleA.Write("Hi");
ModuleB.Write("Hi");
This approach does not work because a static class cannot derive from anything else than object.
Is there any other way to change the property?
You have a lot of static classes going on here and I'm not entirely sure they're necessary. My example does not use static classes other than for the OtherStaticClass reference you have. I understand this may not be quite what you're looking for; many ways to skin this cat.
public abstract class BaseModule
{
public string UsedSource { get; set; }
public void Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
public class ModuleA : BaseModule
{
public ModuleA()
{
UsedSource = "A";
}
}
public class ModuleB : BaseModule
{
public ModuleB()
{
UsedSource = "B";
}
}
To get your output then, you just need to create new instances of ModuleA and ModuleB.
var moduleA = new ModuleA();
var moduleB = new ModuleB();
moduleA.Write("Hi");
moduleB.Write("Hi");
Using a static class means using a singleton. Singletons defeat the purpose of tracking the effective dependencies of your classes.
Anyway, you can approach the problem by refactoring your code and using a factory:
In this case, just drop the static keyword and let the class be inheritable (you have to add the appropriate virtual keywords to allow proper inheritance):
public class BaseModule
{
public string UsedSource {get; set;}
public Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
Then, add an additional class which holds the reference (I gave useless names, focus on the purpose):
public static class MySingleton
{
public static BaseModule _Module;
public static BaseModule Module
{
get
{
return _Module;
}
}
public static void ChangeImplementation (BaseModule module)
{
// do your checks here
_Module = module;
}
}
This way wou can achieve what you ask.
As you can see, this code has several issues, among them it's important to note that this code has global side effects and is not thread safe.
A better approach is to have drop the singleton entirely, and pass the BaseModule class (that can be inherited) as an argument of methods/constructors when needed.
I don't see that you need more than one static class. Instead separate the logic into methods in one static class.
public static class Module
{
private const string SourceA = "A";
private const string SourceB = "B";
public static WriteA(string text)
{
Write(SourceA, text);
}
public static WriteB(string text)
{
Write(SourceB, text);
}
private static Write(string source, string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(source, text);
}
}
Then instead of
ModuleA.Write("Hi");
ModuleB.Write("Hi");
you'd do
Module.WriteA("Hi");
Module.WriteB("Hi");
If you can't change the BaseModule class, you can use it with other state and recover state after using:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static string UsedSource {get; set;}
public static Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
internal class Writer : IDisposable
{
string _lastSource;
public Writer(string source)
{
_lastSource = BaseModule.UsedSource;
BaseModule.UsedSource = source;
}
public void Dispose()
{
BaseModule.UsedSource = _lastSource;
}
}
internal abstract class Module
{
public abstract Source { get; };
public void Write(string text)
{
using (var writer = new Writer(Source))
{
BaseModule.Write(text);
}
}
}
internal class ModuleA : Module
{
public override Source => "A";
}
internal class ModuleB : Module
{
public override Source => "B";
}
But you must ensure thread safety.
If you can change the BaseModule class:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static Write(string text, string source)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(source, text);
}
}
internal abstract class Module
{
public abstract Source { get; };
public void Write(string text)
{
BaseModule.Write(text, Source);
}
}
internal class ModuleA : Module
{
public override Source => "A";
}
internal class ModuleB : Module
{
public override Source => "B";
}
I am working on a class that will have a multiple instances and different delegate function will be passed via the constructor for each object.
how can i pass a function as delegate to MissionGenerator class and force the compiler (at design time) to restrict only a function that belongs to a class that implements IDelegateMission interface. or maybe even better, if possible: belongs to class that implements IDelegateMission and from "type" RaiseTask ().
please take a look at the code below, it shows quite clear what I wish to achive.
// delegate type for tasks
public delegate void TaskDelegate();
public class MissionGenerator
{
protected TaskDelegate MissionToInvoke;
public MissionGenerator(TaskDelegate mission)
{
this.MissionName = MissionName;
}
}
interface IDelegateMission
{
System.DayOfWeek ExecutionDay { get; set; }
int HourOfExecution { get; set; }
void RaiseTask();
}
class Skarim: IDelegateMission
{
// class implement all IDelegateMission methods...
public void RaiseTask()
{
// this is the function to pass as TaskDelegate...
}
}
class MainClass
{
private void MainMethod()
{
MissionGenerator sekerMission = new MissionGenerator(new Skarim().RaiseTask);
}
}
Thank you.
Building on Evk's comment, do something like this:
public delegate void TaskDelegate();
public class MissionGenerator
{
protected TaskDelegate MissionToInvoke;
public MissionGenerator(IDelegateMission mission)
{
MissionToInvoke = mission.RaiseTask;
}
public void StartMission() => MissionToInvoke();
}
public interface IDelegateMission
{
void RaiseTask();
}
public class Skarim : IDelegateMission
{
public void RaiseTask() => Debug.WriteLine("Yo.");
}
public class MainClass
{
private void MainMethod()
{
var sekerMission = new MissionGenerator(new Skarim());
sekerMission.StartMission();
}
}
I have 2 classes:
public class Access
{
public class Job
{
public int Id { get; set; }
protected string JobName { get; set; }
}
}
Class2.cs
public class Full: Access.Job
{
}
Full ful = new Full();
Why I'm not able to access the ful.JobName member?
Because You are trying to access protected method from outside the class. Only public methods are available. You can access the property/variably/method that is protected, only in the inherited class, but not from outer code:
public class Full: Access.Job
{
public void mVoid()
{
Console.WriteLine(this.JobName);
}
protected void mProtVoid()
{
Console.WriteLine(this.JobName);
}
private void mPrivateVoid()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hey");
}
}
Full myFull = new Full();
myFull.mVoid(); //will work
myFull.mProtVoid(); //Will not work
myFull.mPrivateVoid(); //Will not work
If You need to get to the protected property, there are 2 ways (3 actually, but Reflection is the dirty way and should be avoided):
1. Make it public
If it will be set to public, it will be stil inherit and You can directly access it:
Full nFull = new Full();
Console.Write(nFull.JobName);
2. Make a "wrapper"/"facade"
Create new property or method, that will just access the hidden property and return it in expected format.
public class Full: Access.Job
{
public string WrappedJobName { get { return this.JobName; } }
public string WrappedJobName => this.JobName; //C# 6.0 syntax
}
Full mFull = new Full();
Console.WriteLine(mFull.WrappedJobName);
My code is as follows
IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer();
container
.ConfigureAutoRegistration()
.LoadAssemblyFrom(typeof(Test).Assembly.Location)
.LoadAssemblyFrom(typeof(ITest).Assembly.Location)
.ApplyAutoRegistration();
This is my first question.
I'm not sure whether I have used the LoadAssemblyFrom method correctly here:
ITest test = container.Resolve<ITest>();
When I try to compile I get the exception "ResolutionFailedException".
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for your time in advance.
It appears that what you are looking for is this:
container.ConfigureAutoRegistration()
.LoadAssemblyFrom(typeof(ITest).Assembly.Location)
.LoadAssemblyFrom(typeof(Test).Assembly.Location)
.Include(If.ImplementsITypeName, Then.Register())
.ApplyAutoRegistration();
This will tell Unity.AutoRegistration to register all types where there is an interface with the same name, prefixed with I.
Here is a complete working console example showing how to set Unity up for registration by convention, then transfer control into the dependency injection world. You will have to add the Unity NuGet package for this to work.
Tested with Unity v3.5 and VS 2012.
#region
using System;
using Microsoft.Practices.Unity;
#endregion
namespace Demo___Unity
{
internal class Program
{
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var container = new UnityContainer())
{
// Manual method.
//container.RegisterType<IEntryPoint, EntryPoint>();
//container.RegisterType<IInjected, Injected>();
// Set up registration by convention.
// http://blogs.msdn.com/b/agile/archive/2013/03/12/unity-configuration-registration-by-convention.aspx
container.RegisterTypes(
AllClasses.FromAssembliesInBasePath(),
WithMappings.FromMatchingInterface,
WithName.Default,
WithLifetime.ContainerControlled);
var controller = container.Resolve<IEntryPoint>();
controller.Main();
}
}
}
public interface IEntryPoint
{
string Name { get; set; }
void Main();
}
public class EntryPoint : IEntryPoint
{
private readonly IInjected Injected;
public EntryPoint(IInjected injected)
{
Injected = injected;
}
public void Main()
{
Console.Write("Hello, world!\n");
Injected.SubMain();
Injected2.SubMain();
Console.Write("[any key to continue]");
Console.ReadKey();
}
// Demonstrates property injection.
[Dependency]
public IInjected Injected2 { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public interface IInjected
{
void SubMain();
}
public class Injected : IInjected
{
public void SubMain()
{
Console.Write("Hello, sub world!\n");
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
}