We Keep Coding

How to get/set a property of an interface that is not always implemented

What is a good (object oriented) way of setting a property of a class which implements an interface, when that property doesn't always exist in all classes that implement that same interface?
e.g.
Let's say I have an interface
public interface IDataRepository {
public DataStructure GetData(); // DataStructure is an arbitrary class, doesn't matter for this example
}
Now I also have two classes that inherit from this
public class DatabaseRepository : IDataRepository {
public DataStructure GetData()
{
// get data from database
}
}
and
public class FileRepository : IDataRepository {
public string WorkingFolder { get; set; }
public DataStructure GetData() {
// get data from files
}
}
Now my client method doesn't necessarily know what the repository is but here's what I want to do...
private DataStructure ReadData(IDataRepository repository)
{
repository.WorkingFolder = #"C:\Data"; // What is the best way of doing this?
return repository.GetData();
}
obviously the above code won't work and I could do...
if (repository is FileRepository) {
((FileRepository)repository).WorkingFolder = #"C:\Data";
}
or add WorkingFolder as a property of the interface (and therefore all the classes that implement it) even though in most cases it's irrelevant.
but both of these (esp. the first one) seem very inelegant and not very object oriented. What is the oop way of doing this kind of thing?
Edit
The obvious question is if the method doesn't know what repository is, how can it know the correct value for WorkingFolder... But the above is an over-simplification of what I'm trying to do, so let's just say it can find out...

Apparently your ReadData method can't actually accept any type of repository. It is only able to handle a FileRepository. That's what it expects, and that's what it needs to do its job. Given that, that's what it should actually accept as its parameter, rather than an interface that doesn't actually provide a contract that is sufficient for it to do its job.
The entire point of having an interface is so that anyone using that interface can use it without caring what the implementation is. So if you do want to use the interface you need to include enough information in the interface's definition such that it provides every operation that anyone using the interface needs, otherwise you're better off just not using it at all (at least for that specific operation).
As for the specific example given, you should probably just be providing an already configured repository, that has whatever values it needs in order to allow this method to do its work, as a parameter. It doesn't make sense for a method that's reading a value from an arbitrary repository to be configuring that repository at all. That is, if it really is reading something from an arbitrary repository.

As others have said in the comments, you should initialise these properties in the constructor. This is where you know what type you're creating, so you also know what arguments its constructor requires / can set those there.
Once you've initialised the object, you can just pass it around / have anything using that class operate against its interface.
Example:
public void Main(string[] args)
{
var myRepo = new FileRepository(args[0]); //Here's where we set the working directory
var myThing = new Thing();
var data = myThing.ReadData(myRepo);// of course, the current implementation means you could just call `myRepo.GetData()` directly, since ReadData just passes out the same response; but presumably that method adds some additional value..
Console.WriteLine(data.ToString());
}
Supporting Code
public class DatabaseRepository : IDataRepository {
DbConnection connection; //you may want a connection string or something else; going with this type just to illustrate that this constructor uses a different type to the FileRepo's
public DatabaseRepository(DbConnection connection)
{
this.connection = connection;
}
public DataStructure GetData()
{
// get data from database
}
}
public class FileRepository : IDataRepository {
public string WorkingFolder { get; set; } //Do you need set? Generally best to keep it constant after initialisation unless there's good reason to change it
public FileRepository (string workingFolder)
{
this.WorkingFolder = workingFolder;
}
public DataStructure GetData() {
// get data from files
}
}
How do I call the code that creates the class
i.e. maybe you've implemented a really basic factory pattern like so, and want to know how to provide arguments:
public class DataRepositoryFactory
{
Type baseType = typeof(IDataRepository);
IDictionary<string, Type> typeMap = new Dictionary<string, Type>() {
{"File", typeof(FileRepository) }
,{"Db", typeof(DatabaseRepository) }
}
public void RegisterType(string typeName, Type type)
{
if (!baseType.IsAssignableFrom(type)) throw new ArgumentException(nameof(type));
typeMap.Add(typeName, type);
}
public IDataRepository GetDataRepository(string typeName)
{
return (IDataRepository)Activator.CreateInstance(typeMap[typeName]);
}
}
(For a more complex example of a factory, see https://web.archive.org/web/20140414013728/http://tranxcoder.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/a-generic-factory-in-c).
I.e. in this scenario, when you call the factory you know what type you want, but you're only giving it a string to name/identify that class. You could add a params object[] args to your GetDataRepository method, allowing you to call it like so:
var myRepo = myDataRepositoryFactory.GetDataRepository("File", "c:\somewhere\something.dat");
That's a good approach / is actually what's used on the linked example above. However, it means that your call to this code differs for different types; since if we use variables instead of hardcoded values as in the above example we can't simply do the below, since myRepoType could be set to "Db", whilst "myFilePath" would be a string:
var myRepo = myDataRepositoryFactory.GetDataRepository(myRepoType, myFilePath);
That's fixable by calling:
var myRepo = myDataRepositoryFactory.GetDataRepository(myRepoType, myArgs);
i.e. where myArgs is an object[], giving all of the values required in the desired order to initialise the type. The piece to populate object[] with the required values could then take place at the same point at which you decided you wanted the type to be a file repo vs database repo. However, this approach isn't that clean / casting to and from objects stops you from getting help from the compiler.
So how do I improve things?
There are a few options. One is to replace the need to use object[] by instead creating a type to hold your arguments. e.g.
public interface IDataRepositoryConfiguration
{
//nothing required; this is just so we've got a common base class
}
public class FileRepositoryConfiguration: IDataRepositoryConfiguration
{
public string WorkingFolder {get;set;}
}
public class FileRepository : IDataRepository {
public FileRepository (IDataRepositoryConfiguration configuration)
{
var config = configuration as FileRepositoryConfiguration;
if (config == null) throw new ArgumentException(nameof(configuration)); //improve by having different errors for null config vs config of unsupported type
this.WorkingFolder = config.WorkingFolder;
}
//...
}
This still has some issues; i.e. we may pass a DatabaseRepositoryConfiguration as our IRepositoryConfiguration when creating a FileRepository, in which case we'd get the AgumentNullException at runtime; but this does avoid issues should parameters change order, and makes it less of a headache to code / debug.
Could it be further improved?
Dependency Injection offers one solution. This could be used along the lines of the code below (i.e. you create instances of each of your classes, providing the required arguments, and give each instance a name, so that you can later fetch that instantiation. Exactly what that code looks like would depend on the dependency injection library you used:
//setting up your repositories
var container = new Container();
container.Configure(config =>
{
// Register stuff in container, using the StructureMap APIs...
config.For<IDataRepository>().Add(new FileRepository("\\server\share\customers")).Named("customers");
config.For<IDataRepository>().Add(new FileRepository("\\server\share\invoices")).Named("invoices");
config.For<IDataRepository>().Add(new DatabaseRepository(new DbConnection(configurationString))).Named("persist");
config.For<IDataRepository>().Use("persist"); // Optionally set a default
config.Populate(services);
});
//then later when you need to use it...
public DataStructure ImportCustomers(IContainer container)
{
var customerRepo = container.GetInstance<IDataRepository>("customers");
return customerRepo.GetData();
}
I'm sure there are many other approaches, and exactly what approach to use depends on how your program will operate. Hopefully the above is enough to get you past your current problem; but if you find you're still struggling please post a new question with more detail / saying where you're still having issues having considered these points.

If possible, I'd just put the value for that property in the constructor or create a subinterface, like others suggested.
If it's not possible, C# 7.X (don't remember the exact minor version) has a nice code structure for conditional casting:
IDataRepository repo = new FileRepository();
if (repo is FileRepository fileRepo)
{
fileRepo.WorkingFolder = "some dir";
}
However in your case, you should probably rethink your architecture and always pass (or even better always create) a repository object which is ready to be used.

a) Put it into the Inferface definitions. Deal with any "NotImplemented" Exceptions. You always have to expect those with Interfaces anyway.
For example, IEnumerable has a Reset() function. But in most cases it is not implemented. It is not even supposed to be implemented in most cases. Afaik it is only there for Backwards Compatabilty with some old COM stuff.
b) make a sub-interface just for the property
c) Verify the Interface is properly implemented via is checks (throw exceptions thows if nessesary, like Array.Sort will throw a InvalidOperation one), generic constraints, proper argument types and the like.

Delegate example what's the point

Like many other posts I've found on SO, I'm trying to get my head around delegates. Hopefully this example is not classed a duplicate because I am asking a specific question about a particular example.
public delegate void HelloFunctionDelegate(string message);
public class Delegate
{
static void Main()
{
HelloFunctionDelegate del = new HelloFunctionDelegate(GoodNight); // delegate will point to the GoodNight method
del("Hello"); // invoke the delegate
}
public static void GoodMorning(string strMessage)
{
Console.WriteLine(strMessage + " and good morning!");
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static void GoodNight(string strMessage)
{
Console.WriteLine(strMessage + " and good night!");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
So in my example I understand that my delegate is a reference to any function that matches its signature and if I pass in GoodMorning I will see:
Hello and good morning!
and if I pass in GoodNight I will see: Hello and good night!
So its kind of like going through a middle man...
I don't understand is what's the point, why wouldn't I just directly call my GoodMorning / GoodNight methods as and when I need to use them?
Maybe there are better examples for when a delegate is useful, but in this example, why don't I just bypass the middle man?

Since you are asking concretely about this example and not in general: There is no point to doing that in this particular piece of code. It teaches you the mechanics of delegates but it does not teach you the point of using them.
In short, the point is that some piece of code can take a reference to a method without knowing what method it will actually receive. It can later call that delegate at will. That enables more abstractions than otherwise possible.

Consider you have the following delegate:
public delegate void CarEvent(Car car);
And then you have an implementation like the following:
public class Car : DataRecord
{
// An event to execute when the record is deleted
public CarEvent OnDelete { get; set; }
public void Delete()
{
this.DeleteRecord(); // Deletes this record from ex. the database
if (OnDelete)
{
OnDelete(this); // Executes the event
}
}
}
By using a delegate you can subscribe different methods to the OnDelete allowing you to do different things when the record is deleted.
Ex. you can make it so when the record is deleted it's deleted from a "ListView" that holds it.
public class CarList : ListView
{
public CarList()
: base()
{
foreach (var car in CarRecords.LoadCars())
{
var listViewItem = new ListViewItem(car);
car.OnDelete = this.DeleteCarFromList;
this.Items.Add(listViewItem);
}
}
private void DeleteCarFromList(Car deletedCar)
{
this.Items.Remove(deletedCar);
}
}
Of course the above is a rough example and there is a lot more things and different kind of situations where you can use delegates and most notably if you want to use them for events you should consider implementing them using the event keyword. - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/awbftdfh.aspx
All in all you want to use delegates when the behavior may differ depending on the overall implementation of something. Like you might want to do one thing in one situation and something else in another situation, but they should both over-all do the same thing.
If you do not need different behaviors based on implementation then there's no need to use delegates. You'd always want to call a method directly if possible.
I hope this explained it okay.

List of delegates and invoking

I am creating a smaller RPG game in ASP.NET. In this game I have an items architecture, where each item has some methods. For instance, all items should share a method like "Drop", "Examine" and "Use". Some items will have to be extended with methods like "Operate", "Calculate" and such.
So far, I have created the following object GameActionList:
public delegate void MyDelegate();
public class GameActionList
{
public List<MyDelegate> Items = new List<MyDelegate>();
public void Add(MyDelegate del)
{
Items.Add(del);
}
public void CallDelegates()
{
foreach (MyDelegate myDelegate in Items)
{
myDelegate();
}
}
}
I have a BaseItem class, which has this GameActionList. The get property of this in the BaseItem class is like this:
public GameActionList Actions
{
get
{
GameActionList actions = new GameActionList();
actions.Add(this.Drop);
actions.Add(this.Examine);
return actions;
}
}
This is fine, BUT... I have some problems!
My problem
I need a way more generic GameActionList. I need to have a list of not only voids, but also functions.. Also, I need both methods with parameters and without parameters.
For instance: The Drop method will need a Player object, so he can Drop the item. The Examine method will need to return a string descriping the item.
Also, I need some data which I don't know when I Initialize the GameActionList: I first know these data when I invoke the method...
So I have two questions:
How do you extend the GameActionList, so it can contain a list of both voids and functions andalso these both can have parameters or not.. (AND DOES IT EVEN MAKE SENSE??)
How can I give some data to the method later in the cycle, like when invoking?
Also... This might be a very stupid way to do it, so if you have some way more elegant solution.. I'm more than ready to hear it!
Thanks a lot...!
Lars

you most probably need Action , Func delegates
Func
Action

Dependency Injection for objects that require parameters

All of our reports are created from object graphs that are translated from our domain objects. To enable this, we have a Translator class for each report, and have been using Dependency Injection for passing in dependencies.
This worked great, and would yield nice classes structured like this:
public class CheckTranslator : ICheckTranslator
{
public CheckTranslator (IEmployeeService empSvc
, IPaycheckService paySvc)
{
_empSvc = empSvc;
_paySvc = paySvc;
}
public Check CreateCheck()
{
//do the translation...
}
}
However, in some cases the mapping has many different grouping options. As a result, the c-tor would turn into a mix of class dependencies and parameters.
public class CheckTranslator : ICheckTranslator
{
public CheckTranslator (IEmployeeService empSvc
, IPaycheckService paySvc
, bool doTranslateStubData
, bool doAttachLogo)
{
_empSvc = empSvc;
_paySvc = paySvc;
_doTranslateStubData = doTranslateStubData;
_doAttachLogo = doAttachLogo;
}
public Check CreateCheck()
{
//do the translation...
}
}
Now, we can still test it, but it no longer really works with an IoC container, at least in a clean fashion. Plus, we can no longer call the CreateCheck twice if the settings are different for each check.
While I recognize it's a problem, I don't necessarily see the right solution. It seems kind of strange to create a Factory for each class ... or is this the best way?

Shot in the dark here, but could you move those parameters to the method instead?
In other words:
public Check CreateCheck(bool doTranslateStubData, bool doAttachLogo)
{
//do the translation...
}
Do those parameters have to be passed in via the constructor?
(Note - if your response to this is "there are too many methods for that to be practical", then part of the problem may be that the abstraction is too coarse).
Another option (it's really hard to say without understanding the domain model and injection patterns) would be to introduce a parameter object that is itself managed by the injector:
public interface ICheckConfiguration
{
bool AttachLogo { get; }
bool TranslateStubData { get; }
}
Then inject this with the constructor:
public CheckTranslator (IEmployeeService empSvc, IPaycheckService paySvc,
ICheckConfiguration config)
{
// etc.
}
This should be enough. You can then create a concrete CheckConfiguration class that takes those two bool properties in its constructor, and configure your container to create different instances of the parameter object (interface) based on a higher-level DI parameter.
The last thing I think I should mention is that just because you're using DI doesn't mean that everything has to be managed by the container. It's not such a bad thing to create CheckTranslator objects in an ad-hoc fashion if there's only one kind of "translator". As long as the translator still depends on abstractions, which it does here, then maybe you shouldn't be injecting it at all, just let higher-level DI-enabled classes create them ad-hoc.

Tracking instances with generics and supporting subclasses

I've defined the following generic class
public class ManagedClass<T> where T : ManagedClass<T>
{
static ManagedClass()
{
Manager = new ObjectManager<T>();
}
public static ObjectManager<T> Manager { get; protected set; }
public ManagedClass()
{
Manager.Add( (T)this );
}
}
The idea is that I can use it like so:
class Product : ManagedClass<Product> {}
Now I can do something to the 7th product created like so:
Product.Manager.GetById(7).DoSomething();
The problem comes in if i try to use a derived class:
class ExtendedProduct : Product {}
now ExtendedProduct.Manager has a list of 'Products', and if i want to use a new function that I have added to ExtendedProduct (DoSomethingElse), I have to cast the object I get back like so:
((ExtendedProduct)ExtendedProduct.Manager.GetById(7)).DoSomethingElse();
This is a bit ugly, and the whole point of using generics for this is to avoid casting. I suppose I could add a static constructor to the derived class to set Manager = new ObjectManager() and add a new Manager.addObject( this ) in the derived class constructor, but It seems like there should be some better way of doing this using generics. Any suggestions?

The problem is that ExtendedProduct.Manager is the same thing as Product.Manager; the manager object can't act differently depending on where it's accessed from.
A couple of possibilities I can think of:
Hide the typecast inside the GetById method by making it generic:
Product.Manager.GetById<ExtendedProduct>(7).DoSomethingElse();
Use one ObjectManager instance per subclass, connecting them privately if needed
Option 1 reminds me of NHibernate's ICriteria interface. It's effectively the same as a typecast, but a little harder to accidentally break.

Really what you're running into is a weakness with Generics. Once your class has resolved what type it's using for generics, you're somewhat restricted in what you can do.
Normally, I'd say Dependency Injection would be a savior here, but since the problematic method is static, that muddies up the waters.
I'd say the best thing is to have the ObjectManager class do the work for you:
static public class ObjectManager<T>
{
... the code that already exists in ObjectManager ...
static public U GetById<U>(long id)
{
object obj = GetById(id);
if (obj is U)
return (U)obj;
return default(U);
}
}
Then, in your code:
ExtendedProduct.Manager.GetById<ExtendedProduct>(7).DoSomethingElse();
It's not really tons more elegant than casting, but may be one of the only solutions using Generics.