I have created a class like this.
public class SimpleClass
{
public string myProp { get; set; }
public SimpleClass()
{
this.myProp = "";
}
public SimpleClass Method1()
{
this.myProp += "Method1";
return this;
}
public SimpleClass Method2()
{
this.myProp += "Method2";
return this;
}
public string GetProp()
{
return this.myProp;
}
}
I'm using it like this.
public class Worker
{
public Worker()
{
string Output = new SimpleClass().Method1().Method2().GetProp();
}
}
All functions return the container class and last method returns result.
I'm curious about this performance, is it bad thing to use methods like for performance or good?
Should i use it like that or could you suggesst another way.
Thanks
some suggestion :
how should user know First Call method1 then Method2 and finally GetProp()?
It's better to encapsulate your methods and hide all Complexity. For example User just call GetProp() and in GetProp() you can Do what you want .
your exmple can change like below :
public class SimpleClass
{
public string myProp { get; set; }
public SimpleClass()
{
this.myProp = "";
}
private string Method1()
{
this.myProp += "Method1";
return Method2();
}
private string Method2()
{
return this.myProp += "Method2";
}
public string GetProp()
{
Method1();
return this.myProp;
}
}
Finally call your Prop() Method like :
SimpleClass simple = new SimpleClass();
string Output = simple.GetProp();
And Another suggestion to have better Design is Make Your Mathod1 and Method2 as Private.
I think that you are reinventing the wheel in wrong way. you are probably looking for StringBuilder which does exactly same thing.
var builder = new StringBuilder();
var result = builder.Append("something").Append("something else").ToString();
but if you still want to have dedicated class to provide meaningful methods instead of just Append and also provide some abstraction over arguments being passed you can do this.
public class SimpleClass
{
private readonly StringBuilder _builder = new StringBuilder();
public SimpleClass Method1()
{
_builder.Append("Method1");
return this;
}
public SimpleClass Method2()
{
_builder.Append("Method2");
return this;
}
public string GetProp()
{
return _builder.ToString();
}
}
Note that using StringBuilder is efficient way of appending strings together. for small number of appends it may not show difference, but for large number of appends it will be faster and produces less garbage.
Related
I have two constructors which feed values to readonly fields.
public class Sample
{
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
_intField = i;
}
public Sample(int theInt) => _intField = theInt;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
One constructor receives the values directly, and the other does some calculation and obtains the values, then sets the fields.
Now here's the catch:
I don't want to duplicate the
setting code. In this case, just one
field is set but of course there may
well be more than one.
To make the fields readonly, I need
to set them from the constructor, so
I can't "extract" the shared code to
a utility function.
I don't know how to call one
constructor from another.
Any ideas?
Like this:
public Sample(string str) : this(int.Parse(str)) { }
If what you want can't be achieved satisfactorily without having the initialization in its own method (e.g. because you want to do too much before the initialization code, or wrap it in a try-finally, or whatever) you can have any or all constructors pass the readonly variables by reference to an initialization routine, which will then be able to manipulate them at will.
public class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue) => intField = newValue;
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt) => setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
Before the body of the constructor, use either:
: base (parameters)
: this (parameters)
Example:
public class People: User
{
public People (int EmpID) : base (EmpID)
{
// Add more statements here.
}
}
I am improving upon supercat's answer. I guess the following can also be done:
class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty
{
get { return _intField; }
}
void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue)
{
//Do some stuff here based upon the necessary initialized variables.
intField = newValue;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString, bool? doStuff = true)
{
//Initialization of some necessary variables.
//==========================================
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
// ................
// .......................
//==========================================
if (!doStuff.HasValue || doStuff.Value == true)
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt): this(theInt, false) //"false" param to avoid setupStuff() being called two times
{
setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
}
Here is an example that calls another constructor, then checks on the property it has set.
public SomeClass(int i)
{
I = i;
}
public SomeClass(SomeOtherClass soc)
: this(soc.J)
{
if (I==0)
{
I = DoSomethingHere();
}
}
Yeah, you can call other method before of the call base or this!
public class MyException : Exception
{
public MyException(int number) : base(ConvertToString(number))
{
}
private static string ConvertToString(int number)
{
return number.toString()
}
}
Constructor chaining i.e you can use "Base" for Is a relationship and "This" you can use for same class, when you want call multiple Constructor in single call.
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass():this(10)
{
}
public BaseClass(int val)
{
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new BaseClass();
ReadLine();
}
}
When you inherit a class from a base class, you can invoke the base class constructor by instantiating the derived class
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
}
class der : sample
{
public int a;
public int b;
public der(int value1,int value2) : base(50)
{
a = value1;
b = value2;
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
der obj = new der(10,20);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.x);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.a);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.b);
}
}
Output of the sample program is
50 10 20
You can also use this keyword to invoke a constructor from another constructor
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
public sample(sample obj) : this(obj.x)
{
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
sample s = new sample(20);
sample ss = new sample(s);
System.Console.WriteLine(ss.x);
}
}
The output of this sample program is
20
Error handling and making your code reusable is key. I added string to int validation and it is possible to add other types if needed. Solving this problem with a more reusable solution could be this:
public class Sample
{
public Sample(object inputToInt)
{
_intField = objectToInt(inputToInt);
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
public static int objectToInt(object inputToInt)
{
switch (inputToInt)
{
case int inputInt:
return inputInt;
break;
case string inputString:
if (!int.TryParse(inputString, out int parsedInt))
{
throw new InvalidParameterException($"The input {inputString} could not be parsed to int");
}
return parsedInt;
default:
throw new InvalidParameterException($"Constructor do not support {inputToInt.GetType().Name}");
break;
}
}
Please, please, and pretty please do not try this at home, or work, or anywhere really.
This is a way solve to a very very specific problem, and I hope you will not have that.
I'm posting this since it is technically an answer, and another perspective to look at it.
I repeat, do not use it under any condition. Code is to run with LINQPad.
void Main()
{
(new A(1)).Dump();
(new B(2, -1)).Dump();
var b2 = new B(2, -1);
b2.Increment();
b2.Dump();
}
class A
{
public readonly int I = 0;
public A(int i)
{
I = i;
}
}
class B: A
{
public int J;
public B(int i, int j): base(i)
{
J = j;
}
public B(int i, bool wtf): base(i)
{
}
public void Increment()
{
int i = I + 1;
var t = typeof(B).BaseType;
var ctor = t.GetConstructors().First();
ctor.Invoke(this, new object[] { i });
}
}
Since constructor is a method, you can call it with reflection. Now you either think with portals, or visualize a picture of a can of worms. sorry about this.
In my case, I had a main constructor that used an OracleDataReader as an argument, but I wanted to use different query to create the instance:
I had this code:
public Subscriber(OracleDataReader contractReader)
{
this.contract = Convert.ToString(contractReader["contract"]);
this.customerGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerGroup"]);
this.subGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerSubGroup"]);
this.pricingPlan= Convert.ToString(contractReader["pricingPlan"]);
this.items = new Dictionary<string, Member>();
this.status = 0;
}
So I created the following constructor:
public Subscriber(string contract, string customerGroup) : this(getSubReader(contract, customerGroup))
{ }
and this method:
private static OracleDataReader getSubReader(string contract, string customerGroup)
{
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":contract"].Value = contract + "%";
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":customerGroup"].Value = customerGroup+ "%";
return cmdSubscriber.ExecuteReader();
}
notes: a statically defined cmdSubscriber is defined elsewhere in the code; My main constructor has been simplified for this illustration.
In case you need to run something before calling another constructor not after.
public class Sample
{
static int preprocess(string theIntAsString)
{
return preprocess(int.Parse(theIntAsString));
}
static int preprocess(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
return theIntNeedRounding/100;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntAsString)
}
public Sample(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntNeedRounding)
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
And ValueTuple can be very helpful if you need to set more than one field.
NOTE: most of the solutions above does not work for structs.
Unfortunately initializing struct fields in a method called by a constructor is not recognized by the compiler and will lead to 2 errors:
in the constructor: Field xxxx must be fully assigned...
in the method, if you have readonly fields: a read-only field cannot be assigned except in a constructor.
These can be really frustrating for example when you just need to do simple check to decide on which constructor to orient your call to.
My brain is gonna to explode. :) So I would like to get help from you.
Please, think about my question like about just programmer puzzle. (Actually. perhaps it is very easy question for you, but not for me.)
It is needed to create array of objects. For example List where T is class. (I will describe Class T below). Also it is needed create “container” that will contain this array and some methods for work with this array. For example Add(), Remove(int IndexToRemove).
Class T must have field "Container", this way each elements of our array would be able to know where is it contained and has access its container's fields and methods. Notice, that in this case Class T should have type parameter. Indeed, it is not known beforehand which container's type is used.
Let us denote this class container as A and class element (class T) as AUnit.
Code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A a = new A();
a.Add();
a.Units[0].SomeField +=100;
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
class A
{
public List<AUnit> Units;
public A()//ctor
{
Units = new List<AUnit>();
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new AUnit(this));
}
}
class AUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public A Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public AUnit(A container)
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
}
}
Public fields should be protected or private of course, but let think about this later.
You can ask “why we create public A Container field in AUnit”? We create field public string Name{get;private set;} (actually property but nevermind). And also we would like to be able to change value of this field for example method [Class AUnit] public bool Rename(string newName)();. The main idea of this method is changing Name field only that case if no one element in array (public List Units; ) has the same name like newName. But to achieve this, Rename method has to have access to all names that is currently used. And that is why we need Container field.
Code of extended version AUnit
class AUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public A Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public AUnit(A container)
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
Boolean res = true;
foreach (AUnit unt in this.Container.Units)
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = false;
break;
}
}
if (res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return res;
}
}
Ok. If you still read it let's continue. Now we need to create Class B and class BUnit which will be very similar like Class A and Class Aunit. And finally the main question of this puzzle is HOW WE CAN DO IT? Of course, I can CopyPaste and bit modify A and AUnit and create this code.
class B
{
public List<BUnit> Units; //Only Type Changing
public B()//ctor Name changing...
{
Units = new List<BUnit>();//Only Type Changing
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new BUnit(this));//Only Type Changing
}
}
class BUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public B Container;//Only Type Changing
public string Name { get; private set; }
public A a; //NEW FIELD IS ADDED (just one)
public BUnit(B container) //Ctor Name and arguments type changing
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
this.a=new A(); //New ROW (just one)
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
Boolean res = true;
foreach (BUnit unt in this.Container.Units) //Only Type Changing
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = false;
break;
}
}
if (res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return res;
}
}
And I can to use this classes this way.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
B b = new B();
b.Add();
b.Units[0].a.Add();
b.Units[0].a.Units[0].SomeField += 100;
bool res= b.Units[0].a.Units[0].Rename("1");
res = b.Units[0].a.Units[0].Rename("1");
Console.ReadKey();
}
This construction is can be used to create “non-homogeneous trees”.
Help, I need somebody help, just no anybody…. [The Beatles]
I created B and BUnit using CopyPaste.
But how it can be done using “macro-definitions” or “Generic”, inherit or anything else in elegant style? (C# language)
I think that there is no reason to describe all my unsuccessful attempts and subquestions. Already topic is too long. : )
Thanks a lot if you still read it and understand what I would like to ask.
You need to implement a base type, lets call it UnitBase, with all common functionality. I'd structure your code the following way:
Create an interface for your container, this way you can change implementation to more performant solutions without modifying the elements you will be adding to the container.
public interface IContainer
{
Q Add<Q>() where Q : UnitBase, new();
IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units { get; }
}
Following the idea stated in 1, why not make the search logic belong to the container? It makes much more sense, as it will mostly depend on how the container is implemented:
public interface IContainer
{
Q Add<Q>() where Q : UnitBase, new();
IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units { get; }
bool Contains(string name);
}
A specific implementation of IContainer could be the following:
public class Container : IContainer
{
public Container()
{
list = new List<UnitBase>();
}
private List<UnitBase> list;
public Q Add<Q>() where Q: UnitBase, new()
{
var newItem = Activator.CreateInstance<Q>();
newItem.SetContainer(this);
list.Add(newItem);
return newItem;
}
public IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units => list.Select(i => i);
public bool Contains(string name) =>
Units.Any(unit => unit.Name == name);
}
Create a base class for your AUnit and BUnit types condensing all common functionality:
public abstract class UnitBase
{
protected UnitBase()
{
}
public IContainer Container { get; private set; }
public int SomeField;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public void SetContainer(IContainer container)
{
Container = container;
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
if (Container.Contains(newName))
return false;
this.Name = newName; //No need to use String.Copy
return true;
}
}
Implement your concrete types:
public class BUnit : UnitBase
{
public int SpecificBProperty { get; private set; }
public BUnit()
{
}
}
Shortcomings of this approach? Well, the container must be of type <UnitBase>, I've removed the generic type because it really wasn't doing much in this particular case as it would be invariant in the generic type.
Also, keep in mind that nothing in the type system avoids the following:
myContainer.Add<BUnit>();
myContainer.Add<AUnit>();
If having two different types in the same container is not an option then this whole set up kind of crumbles down. This issue was present in the previous solution too so its not something new, I simply forgot to point it out.
InBetween , I am very thankful to you for your advices. Actually I can't say that I understood your answer in full, but using your ideas I have done what I want.
Looks like my variant works well. However I would like to hear your (and everyone) opinions about code described below. The main goal of this structure is creating non-homogeneous trees. So could you estimate it from this side.
First of all. We need to create interfaces for both classes. We describe there all "cross-used" functions.
public interface IUnit<T>
{
string Name { get;}
void SetContainer(T t);
bool Rename(String newName);
}
public interface IContainer
{
bool IsNameBusy(String newName);
int Count { get; }
}
Next. Create Base for Unit Classes for future inheritance. We will use in this inheritors methods from Container Base so we need generic properties and IUnit interface.
class UnitBase<T> : IUnit<T> where T : IContainer
Unfortunately I don't know yet how to solve the problem with Constructor parameters. That is why I use method
SetContainer(T container).
Code:UnitBase
class UnitBase<T> : IUnit<T> where T : IContainer
{
protected T Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public UnitBase()
{
this.Name = "Default";
}
public void SetContainer(T container)
{
this.Container = container;
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
bool res = Container.IsNameBusy(newName);
if (!res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return !res;
}
}
Next. Create ContainerBase
ContainerBase should:
1) has IContainer interface.
2)has information about what it will contain:
... where U : IUnit<C>, new()
3)and .... has information about what itself is. This information we need to pass as parameter to SetContainer() method.
Code ContainerBase:
class ContainerBase<U, C> : IContainer //U - Unit Class. C-Container Class
where U : IUnit<C>, new()
where C : ContainerBase<U, C>
{
protected List<U> Units;
public U this[int index] { get { return Units[index]; } }
public ContainerBase()//ctor
{
this.Units = new List<U>();
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new U());
this.Units.Last().SetContainer(((C)this));//may be a bit strange but actualy this will have the same type as <C>
}
public bool IsNameBusy(String newName)
{
bool res = false;
foreach (var unt in this.Units)
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = true;
break;
}
}
return res;
}
public int Count { get { return this.Units.Count; } }
}
Cast ((TContainer)(this)) may be is a bit strange. But using ContainerBase we always should use NewInheritorContainer. So this cast is just do nothing…looks like...
Finally. This classes can be used like in this example.
class SheetContainer : ContainerBase<SheetUnit,SheetContainer> {public SheetContainer(){}}
class SheetUnit : UnitBase<SheetContainer>
{
public CellContainer Cells;
public PictureContainer Pictures;
public SheetUnit()
{
this.Cells = new CellContainer();
this.Pictures = new PictureContainer();
}
}
class CellContainer : ContainerBase<CellUnit, CellContainer> { public CellContainer() { } }
class CellUnit : UnitBase<CellContainer>
{
public string ValuePr;//Private Field
private const string ValuePrDefault = "Default";
public string Value//Property for Value
{
//All below are Just For Example.
get
{
return this.ValuePr;
}
set
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
{
this.ValuePr = ValuePrDefault;
}
else
{
this.ValuePr = String.Copy(value);
}
}
}
public CellUnit()
{
this.ValuePr = ValuePrDefault;
}
}
class PictureContainer : ContainerBase<PictureUnit, PictureContainer> { public PictureContainer() { } }
class PictureUnit : UnitBase<PictureContainer>
{
public int[,] Pixels{get;private set;}
public PictureUnit()
{
this.Pixels=new int[,]{{10,20,30},{11,12,13}};
}
public int GetSizeX()
{
return this.Pixels.GetLength(1);
}
public int GetSizeY()
{
return this.Pixels.GetLength(0);
}
public bool LoadFromFile(string path)
{
return false;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SheetContainer Sheets = new SheetContainer();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets[0].Pictures.Add();
Sheets[1].Cells.Add();
Sheets[2].Pictures.Add();
Sheets[2].Cells.Add();
Sheets[2].Cells[0].Value = "FirstTest";
bool res= Sheets[0].Rename("First");//res=true
res=Sheets[2].Rename("First");//res =false
int res2 = Sheets.Count;
res2 = Sheets[2].Pictures[0].Pixels[1, 2];//13
res2 = Sheets[2].Pictures.Count;//1
res2 = Sheets[1].Pictures.Count;//0
res2 = Sheets[0].Pictures[0].GetSizeX();//3
Console.ReadKey();
}
Looks like it works like I want. But I didn’t test it full.
Let me say Thank you again, InBetween.
I'm just wondering if there's an automated way to generate constructors with every possible combination of the parameters you might need.
I have a ctor with 4 parameters, but I want to provide overloads where a developer could pass in a single param, or two or three. By hand I've been writing every possible combination and passing defaults to the 4 parameter one. I also need to then introduce two more "full" prototypes ( with a fifth ), then create all the possible combinations for those as well, so I need loads of ctor overloads to cover all combinations.
I'd like to manually write the three full ctors, then be able to generate the combinations with a context menu click. I haven't seen an option like this in Resharper. Anyone know if there's an existing solution out there already?
If you need a lot of constructor parameters, rather than struggling with the explosion of possible permutations, consider creating an "options" class that has sensible defaults:
public class FooOptions
{
public FooOptions()
{
MaintenanceInterval = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(30);
MaximumIdleTime = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5);
}
public TimeSpan MaintenanceInterval { get; set; }
public TimeSpan MaximumIdleTime { get; set; }
//etc...
}
then
class Foo
{
public Foo():this(new FooOptions())
{
}
public Foo(FooOptions opts)
{
//...
}
}
This situation would be a perfect fit for the Builder pattern.
For example, if the class Foo can have any combination of a String, an int and a Bar:
public class Foo
{
public string MyString { get; set; }
public int MyInt { get; set; }
public Bar MyBar { get; set; }
}
Instead of adding a constructor with every possibility, make a Builder. Here's an example of a simple fluent implementation:
public class FooBuilder
{
private Foo foo = new Foo();
public FooBuilder WithString(String someString)
{
foo.MyString = someString;
return this;
}
public FooBuilder WithInt(int someInt)
{
foo.MyInt = someInt;
return this;
}
public FooBuilder WithBar(Bar someBar)
{
foo.MyBar = someBar;
return this;
}
public Foo Build()
{
return foo;
}
}
which can be used like this:
Foo foo = new FooBuilder().WithString("abc").WithInt(3).Build();
This eliminates completely the need for an exponential number of constructors.
Don't need multiple constructor overloads - try using optional/default parameters. Relevant link: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264739.aspx
Example code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var defaultMonster = new Monster();
var archerMonster = new Monster("crossbow");
var knightMonster = new Monster("broadsword", "plate mail");
var wizardMonster = new Monster(armor: "wizard robe", magicItem: "wand");
Console.WriteLine(defaultMonster);
Console.WriteLine(archerMonster);
Console.WriteLine(knightMonster);
Console.WriteLine(wizardMonster);
}
}
class Monster
{
private readonly string _weapon;
private readonly string _armor;
private readonly string _magicItem;
public Monster(string weapon = "scimitar", string armor = "leather", string magicItem = "nothing")
{
_weapon = weapon;
_armor = armor;
_magicItem = magicItem;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return string.Format("Monster armed with {0}, wearing {1}, carrying {2}", _weapon, _armor, _magicItem);
}
}
Hey I have two classes
class Main
{
public exLog exLog;
public Main()
{
}
}
and
class exLog
{
public exLog()
{
}
public exLog(String where)
{
}
public exLog(String where, String message)
{
}
}
i tried to call exLog direct without giving exLog a parameter. So I can call any class with the Main Method.
How should I do that?
public String ReadFileString(String fileType, String fileSaveLocation)
{
try
{
return "";
}
catch (Exception)
{
newMain.exLog("", "");
return null;
}
}
I like to call them like a funtion in Main
You can call it as soon as you instantiate it.
public Main()
{
exLog = new exLog();
exLog.MethodInClass();
}
Also, if you are not in the same assembly you'll need to make exLog public.
Finally, this is C# and the style dictates that class names should be PascalCased. It's a good habit to form.
Methinks you want something like Adapter Pattern
class Main
{
private exLog exLog;
public Main()
{
}
public void ExLog()
{
exLog = new exLog();
}
public void ExLog(String where)
{
exLog = new exLog(where);
}
public void ExLog(String where, String message)
{
exLog = new exLog(where, message);
}
}
I think you're confused about classes, instances, constructors, and methods. This does not work:
newMain.exLog("", "");
because exLog in this case is a property, not a method. (It's confusing because you use the same name for the class and the property, which is why most conventions discourage that).
You can call a method on the instance:
newMain.exLog.Log("", "");
but then you'll need to change the names of the methods (and add a return type) in your exLog class so they don't get interpreted as constructors:
class exLog
{
public void Log()
{
}
public void Log(String where)
{
}
public void Log(String where, String message)
{
}
}
class Main
{
public exLog exLog;
public Main()
{
exLog = new exLog();
exLog.ReadFileString("", "");
}
}
I have the following:
public class Mail {
public String Obfuscate(String email) {
return email.Replace("#", "at").Replace(".", "dot");
}
}
I am calling the method Obfuscate in a class, as follows:
public class Resolver {
public Data GetData () {
return new Data { Email = new Mail().Obfuscate(myEmail) };
}
public String Translate(string value) { /* Some Code */ }
}
The problem is that Obfuscate does the replacement in English: # > at, . > dot
But in the Resolver class the method Translate does exactly what I need ...
How can I "pass" the Translate method to the Obfuscate method so this one uses it to translate # and . to at and dot in the current language?
So the code line inside Obfuscate:
return email.Replace("#", "at").Replace(".", "dot");
Would be become:
return email.Replace("#", Translate("#")).Replace(".", Translate("."));
Where Translate would be the method that I am "passing" to it.
Than You,
Miguel
Consider a different design:
public interface ITranslator
{
string Translate(string s);
}
public class Obfuscator
{
public Obfuscator(ITranslator translator)
{
this.translator = translator;
}
public string Obfuscate(string email)
{
var at = translator.Translate("at");
var dot = translator.Translate("dot");
return email.Replace("#", at).Replace(".", dot);
}
private ITranslator translator;
}
public class EnglishTranslator : ITranslator
{
public string Translate(string s)
{
return s;
}
}
public class PolishTranslator : ITranslator
{
public PolishTranslator() //or `FileInfo dictionaryFile` parameter perhaps
{
// for simplicity
translations = new Dictionary<string, string>();
translations.Add("at", "malpa");
translations.Add("dot", "kropka");
}
public string Translate(string s)
{
return translations[s];
}
private Dictionary<string, string> translations;
}
However you really should consider using a ResourceManager. Resource related mechanisms are designed to deal with translations.
I think #BartoszKP's answer is the right design decision. For completeness, here's how to do what you asked.
Change Mail to take a Func<string,string>:
public class Mail {
public String Obfuscate(String email, Func<string,string> translate) {
return email.Replace("#", translate("at")).Replace(".", translate("dot"));
}
}
And pass your Translate method to it:
public class Resolver {
public Data GetData () {
return new Data { Email = new Mail().Obfuscate(myEmail, Translate) };
}
public String Translate(string value) { /* Some Code */ }
}