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.
See the code below. I want a class that automatically enumerates all the defined static readonly instances of its own type (see TestClass as an example, it defines 3 static readonly instances of its own type).
I want this automation because I want to loop over the defined types and not risk the change of forgetting to add a new instance to the list of All.
Ok, I have it working, that is not the point. But why doesn't FillAll work when called from a static constructor? See the commented static constructor in DefinedInstancesBase<T> code. I mean FieldInfo.GetValue(null) returns null in the static constructor, though the debugger has already hit creating the static readonly instances before the FieldInfo.GetValue(null) is called.
I'm very curious why it doesn't work. Is this by design?
public abstract class DefinedInstancesBase<T>
{
public static IList<T> All
{
get
{
if (_All == null)
{
FillAll();
}
return _All;
}
}
//Why this doesn't work? No idea.
//static DefinedInstancesBase()
//{
// FillAll();
//}
private static void FillAll()
{
var typeOfT = typeof(T);
var fields = typeOfT.GetFields(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static);
var fieldsOfTypeT = fields.Where(f => f.FieldType == typeOfT);
_All = new List<T>();
foreach (var fieldOfTypeT in fieldsOfTypeT)
{
_All.Add((T)fieldOfTypeT.GetValue(null));
}
}
private static List<T> _All = null;
}
[TestClass]
public class DefinedInstancesTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void StaticReadOnlyInstancesAreEnumerated()
{
//Given
var expectedClasses = new List<TestClass>
{
TestClass.First,
TestClass.Second,
TestClass.Third,
};
//When
var actualClasses = TestClass.All;
//Then
for (var i=0; i<expectedClasses.Count; i++)
{
Assert.AreEqual(expectedClasses[i].Id, actualClasses[i].Id);
}
}
private class TestClass : DefinedInstancesBase<TestClass>
{
public static readonly TestClass First = new TestClass(1);
public static readonly TestClass Second = new TestClass(2);
public static readonly TestClass Third = new TestClass(3);
public int Id { get; private set; }
private TestClass(int pId)
{
Id = pId;
}
}
}
There are two separate issues at work here.
There is a typo in your static constructor in the code above. Try changing static DefinedInstances() to static DefinedInstancesBase(), because currently it is just specified as a private static function.
The second and more important issue is to understand the order that the various constructors are being called in. What is happening is that the static constructor on the base abstract class is getting triggered by the instantiation (during member initializer) of the First field in the derived class. Therefore, First is still null when the static constructor of DefinedInstancesBase class is being called (and thus the FindAll() method).
See the following code (slightly modified to better illustrate the issue) and output:
public void Main()
{
DefinedInstancesTest dit = new DefinedInstancesTest();
dit.StaticReadOnlyInstancesAreEnumerated();
}
public abstract class DefinedInstancesBase<T>
{
public static IList<T> All
{
get
{
//if (_All == null)
// FillAll();
return _All;
}
}
// correctly named static ctor
static DefinedInstancesBase() { FillAll(); }
private static void FillAll()
{
Console.WriteLine("FillAll() called...");
var typeOfT = typeof(T);
var fields = typeOfT.GetFields(System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Public | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Static);
var fieldsOfTypeT = fields.Where(f => f.FieldType == typeOfT);
_All = new List<T>();
foreach (var fieldOfTypeT in fieldsOfTypeT)
{
_All.Add((T)fieldOfTypeT.GetValue(null));
}
}
private static List<T> _All = null;
}
//[TestClass]
public class DefinedInstancesTest
{
//[TestMethod]
public void StaticReadOnlyInstancesAreEnumerated()
{
//Given
var expectedClasses = new List<TestClass>
{
TestClass.First,
TestClass.Second,
TestClass.Third,
};
//When
var actualClasses = TestClass.All;
//Then
for (var i=0; i<expectedClasses.Count; i++)
{
//Assert.AreEqual(expectedClasses[i].Id, actualClasses[i].Id);
if (expectedClasses[i].Id != actualClasses[i].Id)
Console.WriteLine("not equal!");
}
}
private class TestClass : DefinedInstancesBase<TestClass>
{
public static readonly TestClass First;
public static readonly TestClass Second;
public static readonly TestClass Third;
public int Id { get; private set; }
static TestClass()
{
Console.WriteLine("TestClass() static ctor called...");
First = new TestClass(1);
Second = new TestClass(2);
Third = new TestClass(3);
}
private TestClass(int pId)
{
Console.WriteLine("TestClass({0}) instance ctor called...", pId);
Id = pId;
}
}
}
TestClass() static ctor called...
// the line "First = new TestClass(1);" now triggers the base class static ctor to be called,
// but the fields First, Second, and Third are all still equal to null at this point!
FillAll() called...
TestClass(1) instance ctor called...
TestClass(2) instance ctor called...
TestClass(3) instance ctor called...
// this null reference exception to be expected because the field value actually was null when FindAll() added it to the list
Unhandled Expecption:
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
I have an object that only initializes itself with barebones data when constructed (fast), and loads itself for real (slow) when first accessed. The idea is that I'm creating a lot of these barebones objects at startup and hash them into a map, then fully load each object whenever it is individually accessed for the first time. The problem is that I cannot guarantee how clients will interact with this object, there are multiple public methods that might be invoked.
Is there a good pattern to support this kind of situation? The obvious (and my current) solution is to track state with an internal bool, check against that bool in every function that might be invoked, and load that way. But that requires code duplication of that behavior across all public functions, and is vulnerable to errors.
I can imagine a single point-of-entry method that then dishes out behaviors based on a client request type etc., but before I go consider going down that road I want to see if there's a commonly accepted approach/pattern that I might not be aware of. I'm doing this in C#, but any insight is appreciated.
If I understood what you want to achieve, you are looking for the Proxy Design Pattern, more specifically, a virtual Proxy.
Refer to http://www.dofactory.com/net/proxy-design-pattern
A small example would be something like:
public abstract class IObjectProvider
{
public abstract IObjectProvider Object{get;}
public abstract void doStuff();
}
public class RealObject : IObjectProvider
{
public RealObject()
{
//Do very complicated and time taking stuff;
}
public override IObjectProvider Object
{
get { return this; }
}
public override void doStuff()
{
//do this stuff that these objects normally do
}
}
public class ObjectProxy : IObjectProvider
{
private IObjectProvider objectInstance = null;
public override IObjectProvider Object
{
get
{
if (objectInstance == null)
objectInstance = new RealObject();
return objectInstance;
}
}
public override void doStuff()
{
if(objectInstance!=null)
objectInstance.doStuff();
}
}
public class SkeletonClass
{
public IObjectProvider Proxy1 = new ObjectProxy();
public IObjectProvider Proxy2 = new ObjectProxy();
}
static void Main(String[] args)
{
//Objects Not Loaded
SkeletonClass skeleton = new SkeletonClass();
//Proxy1 loads object1 on demand
skeleton.Proxy1.Object.doStuff();
//Proxy2 not loaded object2 until someone needs it
}
Here's an example of dynamic proxy approach.
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using Castle.DynamicProxy; //Remember to include a reference, too. It's nugettable package is Castle.Core
namespace ConsoleApp
{
public class ActualClass
{
//Have static instances of two below for performance
private static ProxyGenerator pg = new ProxyGenerator();
private static ActualClassInterceptor interceptor = new ActualClassInterceptor();
//This is how we get ActualClass items that are wrapped in the Dynamic Proxy
public static ActualClass getActualClassInstance()
{
ActualClass instance = new ActualClass();
return pg.CreateClassProxyWithTarget<ActualClass>(instance, interceptor);
}
//Tracking whether init has been called
private bool initialized = false;
//Will be used as evidence of true initialization, i.e. no longer null
private int? someValue = null;
public void Initialize()
{
if (!initialized)
{
//do some initialization here.
someValue = -1; //Will only get set to non-null if we've run this line.
initialized = true;
}
}
//Any methods you want to intercept need to be virtual!
public virtual int replaceValue(int value)
{
//below will blow up, if someValue has not been set to -1 via Initialize();
int oldValue = someValue.Value;
someValue = value;
return oldValue;
}
//block off constructor from public to enforce use of getActualClassInstance
protected ActualClass() { }
}
public class ActualClassInterceptor : ActualClass, IInterceptor
{
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
//Call initialize before proceeding to call the intercepted method
//Worth noting that this is the only place we actually call Initialize()
((ActualClass)invocation.InvocationTarget).Initialize();
invocation.Proceed();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ActualClass instance1 = ActualClass.getActualClassInstance();
ActualClass instance2 = ActualClass.getActualClassInstance();
int x1 = instance1.replaceValue(41);
int x2 = instance2.replaceValue(42);
int y1 = instance1.replaceValue(82);
Debug.Assert(y1 == 41);
int y2 = instance2.replaceValue(84);
Debug.Assert(y2 == 42);
var read = Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
Please consider the following code
public class DataModel
{
public int a { get; set; }
}
public static class StaticAccess
{
private static _Data = new DataModel();
private static DataModel Data {
lock(_Data) {
return _Data;
}
}
}
Will an access to property a such us StaticAccess.Data.a = 3; will lock for the entire property value assignment or just for the _Data static field reference retrieval?
In other words, can I use the above implementation to synchronize the access to the properties of the underlying data model or do I have to implement the lock in every single property of it?
e.g.
public class DataModel
{
private int _a;
public int a {
get {
lock(this) {
return _a;
}
}
set {
lock(this) {
_a = value;
}
}
}
Thanks in advance.
The code in your first example will synchronize access to the instance of DataModel in the StaticAccess class (i.e.: to the _Data field), not to members of the instance of DataModel itself. For that you need your second example.
Side note: Avoid locking on this, and use a dedicated object to lock on, as you don't know who else might lock on the instance. Use something like
public class DataModel
{
private readonly object _lock= new object();
private int _a;
public int a {
get {
lock(_lock) {
return _a;
}
}
set {
lock(_lock) {
_a = value;
}
}
}
Edit based on comments:
The Data property of StaticAccess returns the instance of DataModel. So only thread at a time can obtain the reference to that instance. The goal, however, is to synchronize access to DataModel.a. Since access to DataModel.a is not synchronized any code that tries to either read or write to DataModel.a is not synchronized meaning that multiple threads accessing StaticAccess.Data.a is not synchronized:
void ThreadProc1()
{
// (might) block on "get StaticAccess.Data"
// will not block on "DataModel.a = 20"
StaticAccess.Data.a = 20;
}
void ThreadProc2()
{
// (might) block on "StaticAccess.Data"
// will not block on "DataModel.a = 10"
StaticAccess.Data.a = 10;
// (might) block on "StaticAccess.Data"
// will not block on "DataModel.a"
// "StaticAccess.Data.a" might be 10 or 20;
Console.WriteLine(StaticAccess.Data.a);
}
Say I have a class declared as follows:
public class ExampleClass
{
public Action<int> Do { get; set; }
public ExampleClass()
{
}
public void FuncA(int n)
{
//irrelevant code here
}
public void FuncB(int n)
{
//other irrelevant code here
}
}
I want to be able to use this class like this
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = FuncA }
or
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = excl.FuncA }
or
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = ExampleClass.FuncA }
I can compile the second option there, but I get a "Delegate to an instance method cannot have null 'this'." exception when I hit that code. The third one doesn't even make sense, because FuncA isn't static.
In my actual code, there will be maybe 10-15 different functions it could get tied to, and I could be adding or removing them at any time, so I don't want to have to have a large switch or it-else statement. Additionally, being able assign a value to 'Do' when instantiating the class is very convenient.
Am I just using incorrect syntax? Is there a better way to create a class and assign an action in one line? Should I just man up and manage a huge switch statement?
You have to create the instance of the class and later set the property to the instance member. Something like:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass();
excl.Do = excl.FuncA;
For your line:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = FuncA }
FuncA is not visible without an instance of the class.
For:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = excl.FuncA }
Instance has not yet been created that is why you are getting the exception for null reference.
For:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = ExampleClass.FuncA }
FuncA is not a static method, you can't access it with the class name.
In object initializer syntax you cannot access the variable being initialized before it is definitely assigned:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass()
{
Do = excl.FuncA //excl is unavailable here
}
Read Object and Collection Initializers (C# Programming Guide) for more info.
You could do the following, for example:
public class ExampleClass
{
public Action<int> Do { get; set; }
public ExampleClass(bool useA)
{
if (useA)
Do = FuncA;
else
Do = FuncB;
}
public void FuncA(int n)
{
//irrelevant code here
}
public void FuncB(int n)
{
//other irrelevant code here
}
}
and use it:
ExampleClass exclA = new ExampleClass(true);
ExampleClass exclB = new ExampleClass(false);
Another idea is if these functions may be declared as static (i.e. they don't need any instance members of the ExampleClass), then this would work:
public class ExampleClass
{
public Action<int> Do { get; set; }
public ExampleClass() { }
public static void FuncA(int n) { /*...*/}
public static void FuncB(int n) { /*...*/}
}
and use it the way you want:
ExampleClass excl = new ExampleClass() { Do = ExampleClass.FuncA };
If you have extension methods make sure that those values are not null before invoking the extension methods or handle nulls inside the extension methods.
For example
public static ExtensionClass
{
public static bool RunExtensionMethod(this object myObject)
{
var someExecutionOnMyObject = myObject.IsValid();
//the above line would invoke the exception when myObject is null
return someExecutionOnMyObject ;
}
}
public void CallingMethod()
{
var myObject = getMyObject();
if(myObject.RunExtensionMethod()) //This would cause "delete to an instance method cannot have null" if myObject is null
{
}
}
To handle this scenario handle nulls and assert nulls if you own the extension class.
public static ExtensionClass
{
public static bool RunExtensionMethod(this object myObject)
{
if(myObject == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(myObject));
var someExecutionOnMyObject = myObject.IsValid();
return someExecutionOnMyObject ;
}
}
public void CallingMethod()
{
var myObject = getMyObject();
if(myObject != null && myObject.RunExtensionMethod())
{
}
}