We Keep Coding

How to use Inheritance Abstract Class?

I need some help with an example of Inheritance class (abstract). I can't use my function ToCSV() because i return a list of BananaPart and C# wants a list of FruitPart. How is it possible to solve this ?
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
FruitFactory fruitFactory = new FruitFactory();
Fruit myFruit = fruitFactory.Create("banana");
myFruit.FruitPart.ForEach(f => Console.WriteLine(f.ToString()));
}
}
public class FruitFactory {
public Fruit Create(string fruitType) {
switch(fruitType) {
case "banana":
return new Banana();
break;
default:
throw new Exception("undefined fruitType");
}
}
}
public abstract class Fruit {
protected string _name;
protected List<FruitPart> _fruitPart;
public Fruit() {
this._name = "A fruit";
}
public string Name { get { return this._name; } }
public List<FruitPart> FruitPart { get { return this._fruitPart; } }
}
public abstract class FruitPart { }
public class Banana : Fruit {
public Banana() : base() {
this._name = "banana";
this._fruitPart = ToCSV();
}
public List<BananaPart> ToCSV(){
return new List<BananaPart> { new BananaPart(5, "10"), new BananaPart(10, "20"), new BananaPart(20, "40") };
}
}
public class BananaPart : FruitPart {
private int _seed;
private string _dimensionPart;
public BananaPart (
int seed,
string dimensionPart
) {
this._seed = seed;
this._dimensionPart = dimensionPart;
}
}
It will be a pleasure for me to learn more about it ! Thank you in advance !

The reason that your code is not compiling is because List<T> is not covariant. In order to compile your code you need to change List<T> with IEnumerable<T> which has a covariant type parameter. So the changes are:
public abstract class Fruit {
protected string _name;
protected IEnumerable<FruitPart> _fruitPart;
public Fruit() {
this._name = "A fruit";
}
public string Name { get { return this._name; } }
public IEnumerable<FruitPart> FruitPart { get { return this._fruitPart; } }
}
You can learn more about covariance here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/concepts/covariance-contravariance/
In short, covariance lets you deduce the assignment compatibility of two types based on the assignment compatibility of two other types. Since, we can assign a BananaPart to a FruitPart, we can deduce that a IEnumerable<BananaPart> can be assigned to IEnumerable<FruitPart>.

There is a problem in your model. Say I have a Banana, and it has a list of fruit-parts. Now I could call myBananana.FruitParts.Add(new ApplePart()), this cannot work since a banana is only composed of bananaparts.
To avoid this you need to be more restrictive in what you return. Instead of using a List<FruitPart> you could use IEnumerable<Fruitpart>. This avoids the problem since you cannot add anything to a IEnumerable.
If you are learning I would also recommend starting with interfaces instead of abstract classes. The later is sometimes called "Implementation inheritance", i.e. it is used to share code between two derived classes. This is sometimes useful, but in the majority of cases it is better to put this shared code in a third class, sometimes called "Composition over inheritance".
Your fruit could ook something like this using interfaces:
public interface IFruit
{
string Name { get; }
IEnumerable<IFruitPart> FruitPart { get; }
}
public class Banana : IFruit
{
public Banana() : base() => FruitPart = ToCSV();
public static List<BananaPart> ToCSV() => new List<BananaPart> { new BananaPart(5, "10"), new BananaPart(10, "20"), new BananaPart(20, "40") };
public string Name { get; } = "Banana";
public IEnumerable<IFruitPart> FruitPart { get; }
}
public interface IFruitPart { }
public class BananaPart : IFruitPart
{
public int Seed { get; }
public string DimensionPart { get; }
public BananaPart(int seed, string dimensionPart) => (Seed, DimensionPart) = (seed, dimensionPart);
}
Notice that you do not need much more code for the interface variant compared to the abstract class case.

You cannot safely cast List<Child> to List<Parent> because it would let you add Apple to List<Banana>.
You can create List<FuitPart> instead.
public List<FruitPart> ToCSV()
{
return new List<FruitPart> {
new BananaPart(5, "10"),
new BananaPart(10, "20"),
new BananaPart(20, "40") };
}

As List<BananaPart> doesn't inherite List<FruitPart> you can't do it like that.
I'll suggest you to make some wrapper classes, like FruitedDetails and BananaDetails that would inherite it. That way you could encapsulate the specific details of classes you are working with and wouldn't have to deal with various casting of objects when you pack your lists.

C# constructors sharing code and then referencing properties already set [duplicate]

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.

Mapping an interface to concrete class

I have this weird behavior of AutoMapper. If I have a class that implements two interfaces were both of them are registered in CreateMap only one of them gets mapped and I do not understand why. It looks as if AutoMapper mapped only interface that is mentioned at first place in interfaces list.
Any thoughts? Please, checkout the following fiddler to see what the problem is.
Code from fiddler
A DTO to which I'd like to map:
class Dto {
public string StringValue {get;set;}
public int Value {get;set;}
}
Interfaces - sources from which I'd like to map:
interface ISourceA {
int Value {get;}
}
interface ISourceB {
string StringValue {get;}
}
...and two implementations for those. One that works, the other not really :/
class MultiSource: ISourceA, ISourceB {
private readonly string _s;
private readonly int _v;
public MultiSource(int v, string s) {
_v = v;
_s = s;
}
int ISourceA.Value { get { return _v; }}
string ISourceB.StringValue { get { return _s; }}
}
class StringSource: ISourceB {
public StringSource(string value) {
StringValue = value;
}
public string StringValue {get; private set;}
}
Here's how I use it:
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<ISourceA, Dto>();
Mapper.CreateMap<ISourceB, Dto>();
var ms = new MultiSource(234, "woefjweofij");
var ss = new StringSource("iuahergiuw");
// This one is fine
Console.WriteLine(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(Mapper.Map<Dto>((ISourceA)ms)));
// This one is the same as that above. This is not what I intended to have in return :/
Console.WriteLine(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(Mapper.Map<Dto>((ISourceB)ms)));
// This works as expected
Console.WriteLine(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(Mapper.Map<Dto>(ss)));
}
}

Abstract classes C#

I have an interface
using ClassAbstractFactory;
public interface IPlugin
{
AbstractFactory GetFactory();
}
and an AbstractFactory
public abstract class AbstractFactory
{
public abstract AbstractCake CreateCake();
public abstract AbstractBox CreateBox();
}
public abstract class AbstractCake
{
public abstract void Interact(AbstractBox box);
}
public abstract class AbstractBox
{
}
and I have .dll that inherit AbstractCake
public class ChocolateCake : AbstractCake
{
private bool _isPacked;
private bool _isDecorated;
private string _nameOfCake;
public ChocolateCake()
{
_isPacked = false;
_isDecorated = false;
_nameOfCake = "Шоколадный";
}
public bool IsPacked
{
get { return _isPacked; }
}
public bool IsDecorated
{
get { return _isDecorated; }
}
public string NameOfCake { get; set; }
public override void Interact(AbstractBox box)
{
_isPacked = true;
}
}
I load dll like this:
public IPlugin LoadAssembly(string assemblyPath)
{
Assembly ptrAssembly = Assembly.LoadFile(assemblyPath);
foreach (Type item in ptrAssembly.GetTypes())
{
if (!item.IsClass) continue;
if (item.GetInterfaces().Contains(typeof(IPlugin)))
{
return (IPlugin)Activator.CreateInstance(item);
}
}
throw new Exception("Invalid DLL, Interface not found!");
}
List<IPlugin> list = new List<IPlugin>();
foreach (var assemblyPath in GetPathsListToDll())
{
list.Add(LoadAssembly(assemblyPath));
}
How can I acess to attributes in my ChocolateCake,to use them like
foreach (var str in list)
{
Boolean a = str.GetFactory().GetCake().CreateCake().IsPacked;
}
or like this
string a = str.GetFactory().GetCake().CreateCake().NameOfCake;
or like this
str.GetFactory().GetCake().CreateCake().NameOfCake("Something");
or like this
str.GetFactory().GetCake().CreateCake().IsDecorated(true);

The problem here is that the AbstractFactory has a method that returns AbstractCake, and AbstractCake itself has no properties at all. As it stands, you would need to downcast the Cake (direct, or with the as keyword) to a ChocolateCake prior to accessing any of its properties, which is really messy:
string a = (ChocolateCake)(str.GetFactory().CreateCake()).NameOfCake;
Here are some considerations:
Move the properties which are common to all types of cake into AbstractCake, e.g. NameOfCake, IsPacked and IsDecorated
Given that the AbstractFactory and AbstractCake classes do not have any implementation at all, consider changing these to interfaces instead of abstract classes, i.e. ICakeFactory and ICake. Concrete implementations will be ChocolateCakeFactory and ChocolateCake as before.
Consumers of the factory and the cake should now only access what is exposed on the interfaces (ICakeFactory, ICake and IBox), and not need to do any down casting or make any assumptions about the actual concrete type of Cake etc.
i.e.
public interface ICake
{
void Interact(IBox box);
bool IsPacked { get; }
bool IsDecorated { get; }
string NameOfCake { get; set; }
}
public class ChocolateCake : ICake
{
private bool _isPacked;
private bool _isDecorated;
private string _nameOfCake;
public ChocolateCake() // ctor is not on the interface and is implementation detail
{
_isPacked = false;
_isDecorated = false;
_nameOfCake = "Шоколадный";
}
public void Interact(IBox box) {...}
public bool IsPacked { get { return _isPacked; } }
public bool IsDecorated { get { return _isDecorated; } }
// ...
}
public interface ICakeFactory
{
ICake CreateCake();
IBox CreateBox();
}
public class ChocolateCakeFactory : ICakeFactory
{
public ICake CreateCake() {return new ChocolateCake();}
public IBox CreateBox() {return new ChocolateCakeBox();}
}
Re : Usage
It is highly unlikely that you would ever do this:
string a = str.GetFactory().GetCake().CreateCake().NameOfCake;
str.GetFactory().GetCake().CreateCake().NameOfCake = "Something"; // Prop setter
as this would create a new cake instance each time (and discard the instance). How about:
class Bakery
{
private readonly ICakeFactory _cakeFactory;
public Bakery(ICakeFactory cakeFactory)
{
Contract.Requires(cakeFactory != null);
cakeFactory = _cakeFactory;
}
bool BakeStuff()
{
var cake = _cakeFactory.CreateCake();
cake.NameOfCake = "StackOverflow";
return cake.IsDecorated && cake.IsPacked;
}
}
Edit, Re Raise change Events
This involves implementing INotifyPropertyChanged
public interface ICake : INotifyPropertyChanged
Which you can then raise on your mutable properties, e.g.
public string NameOfCake
{
get { return _nameOfCake} ;
set {
var propChanged = PropertyChanged;
if (propChanged != null && value != _nameOfCake)
{
propChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs("NameOfCake"));
}
_nameOfCake = value;
}
}
And subscribe like so
var cake = new ChocolateCake();
cake.PropertyChanged += (sender, eventArgs)
=> Console.WriteLine("Property {0} has changed", eventArgs.PropertyName);

Would this work?
public abstract class AbstractFactory
{
public abstract TCake CreateCake<TCake>() where TCake : AbstractCake, new();
public abstract AbstractBox CreateBox();
}
...
var cake = str.GetFactory().CreateCake<ChocolateCake>();

Refactoring a list of objects to implement a business rule

I need to refactor the following class:
public interface IEmployee
{
int VacationWeeks { get; }
int YearsWithCompany { set; get; }
double Salary { set; get; }
}
public class Employee : IEmployee
{
private readonly int vacationWeeks;
public Employee(int vacationWeeks)
{
this.vacationWeeks = vacationWeeks;
}
public int VacationWeeks
{
get { return vacationWeeks; }
}
public int YearsWithCompany { set; get; }
public double Salary { set; get; }
}
I need to make sure that VacationWeeks depends only on YearsWithCompany, and I am loading the mapping from the database. So far I have come up with this:
public class EmployeeNew : IEmployee
{
private Dictionary<int,int> vacationWeeksTable;
public EmployeeNew(Dictionary<int, int> vacationWeeksTable)
{
this.vacationWeeksTable = vacationWeeksTable;
}
public int VacationWeeks
{
get { return vacationWeeksTable[YearsWithCompany]; }
}
public int YearsWithCompany { set; get; }
public double Salary { set; get; }
}
This class implements what I want, but it still has one vulnerability: different instances of EmployeeNew in the same collection may have been created with different instances of vacationWeeksTable.
All instances of EmployeeNew in the same collection must refer to the same vacationWeeksTable.
The application I am refactoring uses lots of List all over the system, and we need to be able to modify YearsWithCompany and Salary, yet to guarantee that only one vacationWeeksTable is used per List. These lists are iterated several times; its elements are modified in each iteration.
Here is my imperfect solution. Suggestions are welcome:
// this class does two things, which I do not like
public class EmployeeList : IEnumerable<IEmployee>, IEmployee
{
private Dictionary<int, int> vacationWeeksTable;
private List<EmployeeSpecificData> employees;
private int currentIndex;
private EmployeeSpecificData CurrentEmployee
{
get { return employees[currentIndex]; }
}
public IEnumerator<IEmployee> GetEnumerator()
{
for (currentIndex = 0; currentIndex < employees.Count; currentIndex++)
{
yield return this;
}
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return GetEnumerator();
}
public int VacationWeeks
{
get { return vacationWeeksTable[YearsWithCompany]; }
}
// this is ugly repetitive code I don't like
public int YearsWithCompany
{
get { return CurrentEmployee.YearsWithCompany; }
set { CurrentEmployee.YearsWithCompany = value; }
}
// this is ugly repetitive code I don't like
public double Salary
{
get { return CurrentEmployee.Salary; }
set { CurrentEmployee.Salary = value; }
}
}

I use the following to create and init some of the classes that need default and shared behaviour. Maybe if you can refactor it will help:
It is some form of the Factory and FlyWeight patterns combined (the flyweight part can be removed in your scenario), which in addition has a concept of class Type shared handlers.
I simplified and removed some stuff that you wont need but there is more to remove, I added comments.
Usage would be: (app init)
Dictionary<int,int> vacationWeeksTable = new Dictionary<int,int>();
// fill the table
Factory<Employee>.Init(vacationWeeksTable);
The whenever you create a Employee class:
// remove grouping in the factory class to remove this null
Employee em = Factory<Employee>.Create(null);
It takes only a WeakReference to the classes so you don't have to worry about GC.
Each employee will have the shared vacationWeeksTable setup on creation, without the possibility to change it after from outside if not using the factory class.
You could change the vacation table for all running instances of Employee at any moment in the runtime of the app with:
// this will call the method registered for SetInitialdata on all instances of Employee classes.
// again remove grouping to remove that null
Factory<Employee>.Call(EventHandlerTypes.SetInitialData, null, vacTable);
Sample implementation of Employee:
class Employee : IBaseClass
{
private Dictionary<int, int> vacationWeeksTable;
public virtual void RegisterSharedHandlers(int? group, Action<IKey, int?, EventHandlerTypes, Action<object, SharedEventArgs>> register)
{
group = 0; // disable different groups
register(new Key<Employee, int>(0), group, EventHandlerTypes.SetInitialData, SetVacationWeeksTable);
}
public virtual void RegisterSharedData(Action<IKey, object> regData)
{
// remove this from factory and interface, you probably dont need it
// I have been using it as a FlyWeight data store for classes.
}
private void SetVacationWeeksTable(object sender, SharedEventArgs e)
{
vacationWeeksTable = e.GetData<Dictionary<int, int>>();
}
}
Code pattern Implementation:
IBaseClass : interface that each of my classes that are creatable through a factory implement
public enum EventHandlerTypes
{
SetInitialData // you can add additional shared handlers here and Factory<C>.Call - it.
}
public class SharedEventArgs : EventArgs
{
private object data;
public SharedEventArgs(object data)
{
this.data = data;
}
public T GetData<T>()
{
return (T)data;
}
}
public interface IBaseClass
{
void RegisterSharedHandlers(int? group, Action<IKey, int?, EventHandlerTypes, Action<object, SharedEventArgs>> regEvent);
void RegisterSharedData(Action<IKey, object> regData);
}
Utility generic classes:
public interface IKey
{
Type GetKeyType();
V GetValue<V>();
}
public class Key<T, V> : IKey
{
public V ID { get; set; }
public Key(V id)
{
ID = id;
}
public Type GetKeyType()
{
return typeof(T);
}
public Tp GetValue<Tp>()
{
return (Tp)(object)ID;
}
}
public class Triple<T, V, Z>
{
public T First { get; set; }
public V Second { get; set; }
public Z Third { get; set; }
public Triple(T first, V second, Z third)
{
First = first;
Second = second;
Third = third;
}
}
Factory class with slight modification to handle your scenario:
public static class Factory<C> where C : IBaseClass, new()
{
private static object initialData;
private static Dictionary<IKey, Triple<EventHandlerTypes, int, WeakReference>> handlers = new Dictionary<IKey, Triple<EventHandlerTypes, int, WeakReference>>();
private static Dictionary<IKey, object> data = new Dictionary<IKey, object>();
static Factory()
{
C newClass = new C();
newClass.RegisterSharedData(registerSharedData);
}
public static void Init<IT>(IT initData)
{
initialData = initData;
}
public static Dt[] GetData<Dt>()
{
var dataList = from d in data where d.Key.GetKeyType() == typeof(Dt) select d.Value;
return dataList.Cast<Dt>().ToArray();
}
private static void registerSharedData(IKey key, object value)
{
data.Add(key, value);
}
public static C Create(int? group)
{
C newClass = new C();
newClass.RegisterSharedHandlers(group, registerSharedHandlers);
// this is a bit bad here since it will call it on all instances
// it would be better if you can call this from outside after creating all the classes
Factory<C>.Call(EventHandlerTypes.SetInitialData, null, initialData);
return newClass;
}
private static void registerSharedHandlers(IKey subscriber, int? group, EventHandlerTypes type, Action<object, SharedEventArgs> handler)
{
handlers.Add(subscriber, new Triple<EventHandlerTypes, int, WeakReference>(type, group ?? -1, new WeakReference(handler)));
}
public static void Call<N>(EventHandlerTypes type, int? group, N data)
{
Call<N>(null, type, group, data);
}
public static void Call<N>(object sender, EventHandlerTypes type, int? group, N data)
{
lock (handlers)
{
var invalid = from h in handlers where h.Value.Third.Target == null select h.Key;
// delete expired references
foreach (var inv in invalid.ToList()) handlers.Remove(inv);
var events = from h in handlers where h.Value.First == type && (!#group.HasValue || h.Value.Second == (int)#group) select h.Value.Third;
foreach (var ev in events.ToList())
{
// call the handler
((Action<object, SharedEventArgs>)ev.Target)(sender, arg);
}
}
}
}

Make a class which contains a Dictionary. Creating or getting instance of this new class will load the dictionary in a consistent way. Then your BOs can take an instance of the class, thus ensuring they're all using the same data (because the class containingthe list knows how to load itself with the proper set of data).