We Keep Coding

Static class derive from base change member

In C# a static class can not derive from any other class besides object.
Currently I have this base class:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static string UsedSource {get; set;}
public static Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
Now, depending on which class I'm using, I want to change UsedSource.
// this does not work
internal static class ModuleA : BaseModule
{
static ModuleA(){
UsedSource = "A" // just an example
}
}
// this does not work
internal static class ModuleB : BaseModule
{
static ModuleB(){
UsedSource = "B" // just an example
}
}
Supposed to be called like this
ModuleA.Write("Hi");
ModuleB.Write("Hi");
This approach does not work because a static class cannot derive from anything else than object.
Is there any other way to change the property?

You have a lot of static classes going on here and I'm not entirely sure they're necessary. My example does not use static classes other than for the OtherStaticClass reference you have. I understand this may not be quite what you're looking for; many ways to skin this cat.
public abstract class BaseModule
{
public string UsedSource { get; set; }
public void Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
public class ModuleA : BaseModule
{
public ModuleA()
{
UsedSource = "A";
}
}
public class ModuleB : BaseModule
{
public ModuleB()
{
UsedSource = "B";
}
}
To get your output then, you just need to create new instances of ModuleA and ModuleB.
var moduleA = new ModuleA();
var moduleB = new ModuleB();
moduleA.Write("Hi");
moduleB.Write("Hi");

Using a static class means using a singleton. Singletons defeat the purpose of tracking the effective dependencies of your classes.
Anyway, you can approach the problem by refactoring your code and using a factory:
In this case, just drop the static keyword and let the class be inheritable (you have to add the appropriate virtual keywords to allow proper inheritance):
public class BaseModule
{
public string UsedSource {get; set;}
public Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
Then, add an additional class which holds the reference (I gave useless names, focus on the purpose):
public static class MySingleton
{
public static BaseModule _Module;
public static BaseModule Module
{
get
{
return _Module;
}
}
public static void ChangeImplementation (BaseModule module)
{
// do your checks here
_Module = module;
}
}
This way wou can achieve what you ask.
As you can see, this code has several issues, among them it's important to note that this code has global side effects and is not thread safe.
A better approach is to have drop the singleton entirely, and pass the BaseModule class (that can be inherited) as an argument of methods/constructors when needed.

I don't see that you need more than one static class. Instead separate the logic into methods in one static class.
public static class Module
{
private const string SourceA = "A";
private const string SourceB = "B";
public static WriteA(string text)
{
Write(SourceA, text);
}
public static WriteB(string text)
{
Write(SourceB, text);
}
private static Write(string source, string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(source, text);
}
}
Then instead of
ModuleA.Write("Hi");
ModuleB.Write("Hi");
you'd do
Module.WriteA("Hi");
Module.WriteB("Hi");

If you can't change the BaseModule class, you can use it with other state and recover state after using:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static string UsedSource {get; set;}
public static Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
internal class Writer : IDisposable
{
string _lastSource;
public Writer(string source)
{
_lastSource = BaseModule.UsedSource;
BaseModule.UsedSource = source;
}
public void Dispose()
{
BaseModule.UsedSource = _lastSource;
}
}
internal abstract class Module
{
public abstract Source { get; };
public void Write(string text)
{
using (var writer = new Writer(Source))
{
BaseModule.Write(text);
}
}
}
internal class ModuleA : Module
{
public override Source => "A";
}
internal class ModuleB : Module
{
public override Source => "B";
}
But you must ensure thread safety.
If you can change the BaseModule class:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static Write(string text, string source)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(source, text);
}
}
internal abstract class Module
{
public abstract Source { get; };
public void Write(string text)
{
BaseModule.Write(text, Source);
}
}
internal class ModuleA : Module
{
public override Source => "A";
}
internal class ModuleB : Module
{
public override Source => "B";
}

How to pass generic field to observable collection

I have code as follows
public class Field<T>
{
private T_fieldValue;
public T FieldValue
{
get
{
return _fieldValue;
}
set
{
_fieldValue = value;
}
}
}
public class Container
{
private ObservableCollection<Field> _fieldValues;
public ObservableCollection<Field> FieldValues
{
get { return _fieldValues; }
set { _fieldValues = value; }
}
}
How can I pass my Type parameter in container class as well ??
i.e I am looking for something like
private ObservableCollection<Field<T>> _fieldValues;
EDIT:
I made changes to the class as follows
public class Container<T>
{
public string MyName { get; set; }
private ObservableCollection<Field<T>> _fieldValues;
public ObservableCollection<Field<T>> FieldValues
{
get { return _fieldValues; }
set { _fieldValues = value;}
}
}
}
Now in my Main class how can i call something like
new ObservableCollection<Container>() { MyName ="Kyle",
new Container() { FieldValues = new ObservableCollection<Field<int>>()
{new Field<int>(){FieldValue=10}}; // I am not sure if this syntax is correct

You will need to make the Container class generic as well:
class Container<T> : BindableBase
{
private ObservableCollection<Field<T>> _fieldValues;
}
If you always have a specific T parameter type in mind for Container, then you can of course just hard-code that:
class Container : BindableBase
{
private ObservableCollection<Field<SomeSpecificType>> _fieldValues;
}
To create an instance of your generic Container<T> class, you use the exact same syntax you'd use for any generic type. For example, if T is int, you would use:
new Container<int>()
Then you can assign the FieldValues property as you indicate in your updated example. I.e.:
FieldValues = new ObservableCollection<Field<int>>()

C# How to treat static class as a variable

I have a static Class and within it I have multiple public static attributes. I treat this class as my global class.
However now I need to treat this class as a variable so that I can pass it to a method of another class for processing..
I can't instantiate this class.. So in effect I can only assign the variables inside this class.
Is my understanding correct or am I missing something?
public static class Global
{
public const int RobotMax = 2;
// GUI sync context
public static MainForm mainForm;
public static SynchronizationContext UIContext;
// Database
public static Database DB = null;
public static string localDBName = "local.db";
public static Database localDB = null;
public static Database ChangeLogDB = null;
public static string changeLogDBName = "ChangeLog.db";
}
Let say I have a class like this, and I need to somehow keep a copy of this in another class maybe
public static class Global_bk
{
public const int RobotMax = 2;
// GUI sync context
public static MainForm mainForm;
public static SynchronizationContext UIContext;
// Database
public static Database DB = null;
public static string localDBName = "local.db";
public static Database localDB = null;
public static Database ChangeLogDB = null;
public static string changeLogDBName = "ChangeLog.db";
}
I need to copy the contents from Global to Global_bk.
And after that I need to compare the contents of the two classes in a method like
static class extentions
{
public static List<Variance> DetailedCompare<T>(T val1, T val2)
{
List<Variance> variances = new List<Variance>();
FieldInfo[] fi = val1.GetType().GetFields();
foreach (FieldInfo f in fi)
{
Variance v = new Variance();
v.Prop = f.Name;
v.valA = f.GetValue(val1);
v.valB = f.GetValue(val2);
if (!v.valA.Equals(v.valB))
variances.Add(v);
}
return variances;
}
}
class Variance
{
string _prop;
public string Prop
{
get { return _prop; }
set { _prop = value; }
}
object _valA;
public object valA
{
get { return _valA; }
set { _valA = value; }
}
object _valB;
public object valB
{
get { return _valB; }
set { _valB = value; }
}
}
So on my main form, how do I go about calling the compare method and passing the static Global class inside?
example: extentions.DetailedCompare(Global, Global_bk) ? Of course this would give me an error because I cant pass a type as a variable.
Please help me, this is driving me nuts...

How about the singleton pattern ? You can pass reference to shared interface (IDoable in exable below) and still have just one instance.
I.E.:
public interface IDoable {
int Value { get; set; }
void Foo();
}
public static class DoableWrapper {
private MyDoable : IDoable {
public int Value { get;set; }
public void Foo() {
}
}
private static IDoable s_Doable = new MyDoable();
public static IDoable Instance {
get { return s_Doable; }
}
}

Singleton is the way to go here. You can do it like this:
internal class SomeClass
{
private static SomeClass singleton;
private SomeClass(){} //yes: private constructor
public static SomeClass GetInstance()
{
return singleton ?? new SomeClass();
}
public int SomeProperty {get;set;}
public void SomeMethod()
{
//do something
}
}
The GetInstance Method will return you a SomeClass object that you can edit and pass into whatever you need.

You can access the members with classname.membername.
internal static class SomeClass
{
public static int SomeProperty {get;set;}
public static void SomeMethod()
{
//do something
}
}
static void main()
{
SomeClass.SomeProperty = 15;
SomeClass.SomeMethod();
}

The only way you are going to obtain a variable with the "class" information is using reflection. You can get a Type object for the class.
namespace Foo {
public class Bar
{
}
}
Type type = Type.GetType("Foo.Bar");
Otherwise, if you are really describing a class "instance" then use an object and simply instantiate one.
C# offers no other notation for class variables.

Keep a Dictionary<Type, MyClass<T>> where elements are referenceable by type

I have an abstract class called EntityTypeTransform with a single abstract method designed to hold a Func delegate that converts an IDataRecord into an instance of T.
public abstract class EntityTypeTransform<TEntityType> where TEntityType : class
{
public abstract Func<IDataRecord, TEntityType> GetDataTransform();
}
An implementation of that class might look like (does look like) this:
public class TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform : EntityTypeTransform<TaskParameter>
{
public override Func<IDataRecord, TaskParameter> GetDataTransform()
{
return dataRecord => new TaskParameter()
{
TaskId = (int)dataRecord["task_id"],
Name = (string)dataRecord["p_name"],
Value = (string)dataRecord["p_value"]
};
}
}
Now I want to keep an instance of each of these classes in a generic Dictionary, something like:
Dictionary<Type, EntityTypeTransform<T>>
But this doesn't work because (for example) an instance of EntityTypeTransform Of Task is not the same as an instance of EntityTypeTransform Of TaskParameter.
Can anyone help me out?
Edit: I should add that the Type key = typeof(T)

Actually, you don't need to use a dictionary at all! You can use the fact that GenericClass<T> is actually a different type for each T, so it can have its own static fields (i.e. GenericClass<Foo>.SomeField is not shared with GenericClass<Bar>.SomeField)
For instance you can implement your cache like this:
static class TransformCache<TEntityType>
{
public static EntityTypeTransform<TEntityType> Transform { get; set; }
}
And use it like this:
TransformCache<TaskParameter>.Transform = new TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform();

You can't specify a strong-typed collection that would hold different generic types. Here's the approach I've used in a similar problem, modified to match your requirement:
class TransformCollection
{
private Hashtable cache = new Hashtable();
public void Add<T>(EntityTypeTransform<T> transform) where T : class
{
this.cache[typeof(T)] = itemToCache;
}
public bool Exists<T>() where T : class
{
return this.cache.ContainsKey(typeof(T));
}
public EntityTypeTransform<T> Get<T>() where T : class
{
if (!this.Exists<T>())
throw new ArgumentException("No cached transform of type: " + typeof(T).Name);
return this.cache[typeof(T)] as EntityTypeTransform<T>;
}
}
This gives you type-safe cache for your generic type (though type-safety is enforced by the class's logic, not C#). You can use it as follows:
var collection = new TransformCollection();
collection.Add(SomeMethodToGetTransform<Task>());
//...
if (collection.Exists<Task>())
{
var transform = collection.Get<Task>();
//...
}

You could use an interface that is non-generic and then implement that interface explicitly inside that abstract class, It's pretty common in the .Net library itself:
public interface IEntityTypeTransform
{
Func<IDataRecord, object> GetDataTransform();
}
public abstract class EntityTypeTransform<TEntityType> : IEntityTypeTransform
where TEntityType : class
{
public virtual Func<IDataRecord, TEntityType> GetDataTransform()
{
return this.GetDataTransformImpl();
}
public abstract Func<IDataRecord, TEntityType> GetDataTransformImpl();
Func<IDataRecord, object> IEntityTypeTransform.GetDataTransform()
{
return this.GetDataTransform();
}
}

You would have to create a non-generic base class, e.g.
public abstract class EntityTypeTransformBase
{
public abstract Func<IDataRecord, object> GetDataTransform();
}
public abstract class EntityTypeTransform<TEntityType> : EntityTypeTransformBase where TEntityType : class
{
public abstract Func<IDataRecord, TEntityType> GetDataTransformImpl();
public override Func<IDataRecord, object> GetDataTransform()
{
return GetDataTransformImpl();
}
}
public class TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform : EntityTypeTransform<TaskParameter>
{
public override Func<IDataRecord, TaskParameter> GetDataTransformImpl()
{
return dataRecord => new TaskParameter()
{
TaskId = (int)dataRecord["task_id"],
Name = (string)dataRecord["p_name"],
Value = (string)dataRecord["p_value"]
};
}
}
Now you can create your dictionary:
var d = new Dictionary<Type, EntityTypeTransformBase>();
d.Add(typeof(TaskParameter), new TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform());

You can use KeyedByTypeCollection to get type-safety and you can define an interface with a covariant type parameter to make sure that only objects of type EntityTypeTransform<T> can be added to the dictionary:
public interface IEntityTypeTransform<out TEntityType> where TEntityType : class
{
TEntityType Transform(IDataRecord dataRecord);
}
public abstract class EntityTypeTransform<TEntityType> : IEntityTypeTransform<TEntityType> where TEntityType : class
{
public abstract TEntityType Transform(IDataRecord dataRecord);
}
public class TaskParameter
{
public int TaskId;
public string Name;
public string Value;
}
public class TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform : EntityTypeTransform<TaskParameter>
{
public override TaskParameter Transform(IDataRecord dataRecord)
{
return new TaskParameter()
{
TaskId = (int)dataRecord["task_id"],
Name = (string)dataRecord["p_name"],
Value = (string)dataRecord["p_value"]
};
}
}
public class SomeClass
{
public KeyedByTypeCollection<IEntityTypeTransform<object>> TransformDictionary = new KeyedByTypeCollection<IEntityTypeTransform<object>>()
{
new TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform(),
// More transforms here
};
}
Now you can use it like this:
public void SomeMethod(IDataRecord dataRecord)
{
TaskParameter taskParameter = TransformDictionary.Find<TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform>().Transform(dataRecord);
}

I have tried to understand what you exactly want I hope this is exactly what you are looking for!
You shall set in TaskParameter class the correct parameters: TaskId, Name, Value
public abstract class EntityTypeTransform<TEntityType> where TEntityType : class
{
public abstract Func<IDataRecord, TEntityType> GetDataTransform();
}
public class TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform : EntityTypeTransform<TaskParameter>
{
public override Func<IDataRecord, TaskParameter> GetDataTransform()
{
return x => new TaskParameter { X = x.FieldCount };
}
}
public class TaskParameter
{
public int X { get; set; }
}
Dictionary<Type, EntityTypeTransform<TaskParameter>> imADict;

Add a non generic interface to your transformers:
public interface IEntityTypeTransform
{
Func<IDataRecord, object> GetDataTransform();
}
public abstract class EntityTypeTransform<T> : IEntityTypeTransform
{
public abstract Func<IDataRecord, object> GetDataTransform();
}
public class TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform : EntityTypeTransform<TaskParameter>
{
public override Func<IDataRecord, object> GetDataTransform()
{
return dataRecord => new TaskParameter()
{
TaskId = (int)dataRecord["task id"],
};
}
}
Then you can encapsulate your dictionary for ensure that datatypes will always match. Never allow to add a IEntityTypeTransform of a bad type :
public class TransformDistributor
{
private readonly Dictionary<Type, IEntityTypeTransform> _transforms = new Dictionary<Type, IEntityTypeTransform>();
public void Add<T>(EntityTypeTransform<T> type)
{
this._transforms.Add(typeof(T), type);
}
public T Transform<T>(IDataRecord record)
{
var transform = this._transforms[typeof(T)].GetDataTransform()(record);
if (transform is T)
{
return (T)transform;
}
else
{
// theorically can't happen
throw new InvalidOperationException("transformer doesn't return instance of type " + transform.GetType().Name);
}
}
}
The advantage are that at compile time, your are sure that nobody can insert a bad transformer, even if your are not using generics.
Usage :
var transforms = new TransformDistributor();
transforms.Add<TaskParameter>(new TaskParameterEntityTypeTransform());
var taskParameter = transforms.Transform<TaskParameter>(new DataRecord());

Call constant property on class like static?

I got an abstract base class
public class Base
{
public abstract String Info { get; }
}
and some children.
public class A : Base
{
public override String Info { get { return "A does ..."; } }
}
public class B : Base
{
public override String Info { get { return "B does ..."; } }
}
This is mere a constant but I want to make sure using Base that all classes implement it.
Now I sometimes do not have an object instance but want to access A.Info - this is not possible due it is a instance property.
Is there another way than implementing the same property on instance AND on static level? That would be feel like a duplicate violating DRY programming style.
NEW EDIT: I now see this two solutions:
public class Base
{
public abstract String ClassInfo { get; }
}
public class A : Base
{
public override String ClassInfo { get { return Info; } }
public static String Info { get { return "A does ..."; } }
}
public class B : Base
{
public override String ClassInfo { get { return Info; } }
public static String Info { get { return "In B we do ..."; } }
}
With this I can do with any object of type Base something like object.ClassInfo but also use the value in my factory hardcoded like if(A.Info) return new A(). But I have to implement two properties for the same information in every class.
On the other hand:
public class Base
{
public abstract String ClassInfo { get; }
public static String GetClassInfo<T>() where T : BaseControl, new()
{
T obj = new T();
return obj.ClassInfo;
}
}
public class A : Base
{
public override String ClassInfo { get { return "text A"; } }
}
public class B : Base
{
public override String ClassInfo { get { return "text B"; } }
}
Due to the abstract Base it is made sure that ClassInfo is always implemented. Calls with obj.ClassInfo and Base.GetClassInfo<A>() are okay. But with this every child of Base must have a default constructor without arguments and we loose performance with the unneccessary created instance.
Is there any other idea? Which one would you prefer and why?

If you need specific return results of your static properties, you're better of either
a) Instance properties
2) Attributes
In the example you've already given, you've got an instance of Base, which means you can just make the instance property virtual:
public class Base
{
public virtual string Info { get { return "From Base"; } }
}
public class A : Base
{
public override string Info { get { return "From A"; } }
}
If you wanted to go the attribute route, you define it as such:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, Inherited = true)]
public class InfoAttribute : Attribute
{
public InfoAttribute(string info) { this.Info = info; }
public string Info { get; private set; }
}
[InfoAttribute(Info = "From Base")]
public class Base
{
public string GetInfo()
{
var attr = GetType()
.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InfoAttribute), true)
.FirstOrDefault();
return (attr == null) ? null : attr.Info;
}
}
[InfoAttribute(Info = "From A")]
public class A : Base { }
If you wanted to call it as a static function call, you could make this change:
public static string GetInfo(Base instance)
{
var attr = instance.GetType()
.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InfoAttribute), true)
.FirstOrDefault();
return (attr == null) ? null : attr.Info;
}
And then call it as: Base.GetInfo(instance);. All in all, not very elegant!

This is not possible.
static members cannot be virtual or abstract.
You should make an abstract instance property.

Statics can't be overridden. If you truly want to do something like that, you'd want an instance property that is virtual in the base that gets overridden in the subclasses.

Does it compiled? I don't think so. Static cannot be marked as override, virtual or abstract.