Very new to C# so forgive me if this is a silly question.
If I have a base class called Validator, and a number of classes which inherit from this class such as validateFirstname, validateSecondname etc... is it possible to write a method which will loop through each of these subclasses and instantiate each?
Something along the lines of
public class loadValidators
{
public loadValidators()
{
foreach (subclass in class)
{
// instantiate class here
}
}
}
Any help is much appreciated as always.
Try this:
var validator_type = typeof (Validator);
var sub_validator_types =
validator_type
.Assembly
.DefinedTypes
.Where(x => validator_type.IsAssignableFrom(x) && x != validator_type)
.ToList();
foreach (var sub_validator_type in sub_validator_types)
{
Validator sub_validator = (Validator)Activator.CreateInstance(sub_validator_type);
}
This code assumes that all the sub classes live in the same assembly/project as the Validator class.
Also, it assumes that each of the subclasses have a public parameterless constructor.
Please note that I would not recommend this approach.
Instead you should do something like this to solve your problem (of modeling/using multiple validators):
public interface IValidator
{
bool Validate(SomeObject something);
}
public class FirstNameValidator : IValidator
{
public bool Validate(SomeObject something)
{
...
}
}
public class LastNameValidator : IValidator
{
public bool Validate(SomeObject something)
{
...
}
}
public class CompositeValidator : IValidator
{
private readonly IValidator[] m_Validators;
public CompositeValidator(params IValidator[] validators)
{
m_Validators = validators;
}
public bool Validate(SomeObject something)
{
foreach (IValidator validator in m_Validators)
{
if (!validator.Validate(something))
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
The CompositeValidator wraps multiple validators and knows how to validate objects using those validators.
You can use it like this:
var composite_validator = new CompositeValidator(new FirstNameValidator() , new LastNameValidator());
composite_validator.Validate(obj);
Related
I have two classes Inherited from ICart interface
When I create an object from this classes I want only Guest class show me IsInfoExist property. How am I gonna do that?
ICart cart = new Guest();
bool c = cart.IsInfoExist //it's ok
ICart cart = new Member();
cart.IsInfoExist not ok.
Actually I dont want never appear on intellinsense but Interface force me to show Member IsInfoExist property
class Guest:ICart
{
public bool IsInfoExist
{
get { return Session["guest_info"] != null; }
}
public void GetCart()
{
}
}
class Member:ICart
{
//Hide this on intellinsense always!
public bool IsInfoExist
{
get { return false; }
}
public void GetCart()
{
}
}
public interface ICart
{
void GetCart();
bool IsInfoExist { get; }
}
By explicitly implementing the property:
bool ICart.IsInfoExist
{
get { return Session["guest_info"] != null; }
}
If you have a Member or a Guest instance, it won't have an IsInfoExist unless you explicitly cast it to an ICart.
Member myMember = new Member();
bool test = myMember.IsInfoExist; // won't compile.
bool test1 = ((ICart) myMember).IsInfoExist; // will compile.
If IsInfoExists only must be in Guest class, remove it from the interface and leave it as is in the Guest class.
A class implementing a interface must implement all methods in it, but it can have other methods that does not belong to the interface and are specific to that class. Is a nonsense having to implement IsInfoExists in the Member class only to hide it afterwards. So, it would be something like:
public interface ICart
{
void GetCart();
}
class Guest:ICart
{
public bool IsInfoExist
{
get { return Session["guest_info"] != null; }
}
public void GetCart()
{
}
}
class Member:ICart
{
public void GetCart()
{
}
}
Edit
It seems the problem with this approach for you is that you are always using variables of type ICart and this way you can't access that method. But you can, you just have to cast it to the correct type,something like this:
ICart cart = new Guest();
ICart cart2 = new Member();
if (cart is Guest)
{
bool info=((Guest)cart).IsInfoExist;
}
if (cart is Member)
{
bool info=((Member)cart).IsInfoExist; //this won't compile as IsInfoExist is not in the Member class
}
Use two interfaces to accomplish that. Like ICart and ICartInfo for example. In this case you have a clear seperation and it would make your code cleaner and better to read.
I guess there is no way.
Closest solution is
[Obsolete("Only Guest Member", true)]
public bool IsInfoExist
{
get { return false; }
}
I'm gonna use this. Thanks
My brain is gonna to explode. :) So I would like to get help from you.
Please, think about my question like about just programmer puzzle. (Actually. perhaps it is very easy question for you, but not for me.)
It is needed to create array of objects. For example List where T is class. (I will describe Class T below). Also it is needed create “container” that will contain this array and some methods for work with this array. For example Add(), Remove(int IndexToRemove).
Class T must have field "Container", this way each elements of our array would be able to know where is it contained and has access its container's fields and methods. Notice, that in this case Class T should have type parameter. Indeed, it is not known beforehand which container's type is used.
Let us denote this class container as A and class element (class T) as AUnit.
Code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A a = new A();
a.Add();
a.Units[0].SomeField +=100;
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
class A
{
public List<AUnit> Units;
public A()//ctor
{
Units = new List<AUnit>();
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new AUnit(this));
}
}
class AUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public A Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public AUnit(A container)
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
}
}
Public fields should be protected or private of course, but let think about this later.
You can ask “why we create public A Container field in AUnit”? We create field public string Name{get;private set;} (actually property but nevermind). And also we would like to be able to change value of this field for example method [Class AUnit] public bool Rename(string newName)();. The main idea of this method is changing Name field only that case if no one element in array (public List Units; ) has the same name like newName. But to achieve this, Rename method has to have access to all names that is currently used. And that is why we need Container field.
Code of extended version AUnit
class AUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public A Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public AUnit(A container)
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
Boolean res = true;
foreach (AUnit unt in this.Container.Units)
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = false;
break;
}
}
if (res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return res;
}
}
Ok. If you still read it let's continue. Now we need to create Class B and class BUnit which will be very similar like Class A and Class Aunit. And finally the main question of this puzzle is HOW WE CAN DO IT? Of course, I can CopyPaste and bit modify A and AUnit and create this code.
class B
{
public List<BUnit> Units; //Only Type Changing
public B()//ctor Name changing...
{
Units = new List<BUnit>();//Only Type Changing
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new BUnit(this));//Only Type Changing
}
}
class BUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public B Container;//Only Type Changing
public string Name { get; private set; }
public A a; //NEW FIELD IS ADDED (just one)
public BUnit(B container) //Ctor Name and arguments type changing
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
this.a=new A(); //New ROW (just one)
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
Boolean res = true;
foreach (BUnit unt in this.Container.Units) //Only Type Changing
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = false;
break;
}
}
if (res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return res;
}
}
And I can to use this classes this way.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
B b = new B();
b.Add();
b.Units[0].a.Add();
b.Units[0].a.Units[0].SomeField += 100;
bool res= b.Units[0].a.Units[0].Rename("1");
res = b.Units[0].a.Units[0].Rename("1");
Console.ReadKey();
}
This construction is can be used to create “non-homogeneous trees”.
Help, I need somebody help, just no anybody…. [The Beatles]
I created B and BUnit using CopyPaste.
But how it can be done using “macro-definitions” or “Generic”, inherit or anything else in elegant style? (C# language)
I think that there is no reason to describe all my unsuccessful attempts and subquestions. Already topic is too long. : )
Thanks a lot if you still read it and understand what I would like to ask.
You need to implement a base type, lets call it UnitBase, with all common functionality. I'd structure your code the following way:
Create an interface for your container, this way you can change implementation to more performant solutions without modifying the elements you will be adding to the container.
public interface IContainer
{
Q Add<Q>() where Q : UnitBase, new();
IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units { get; }
}
Following the idea stated in 1, why not make the search logic belong to the container? It makes much more sense, as it will mostly depend on how the container is implemented:
public interface IContainer
{
Q Add<Q>() where Q : UnitBase, new();
IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units { get; }
bool Contains(string name);
}
A specific implementation of IContainer could be the following:
public class Container : IContainer
{
public Container()
{
list = new List<UnitBase>();
}
private List<UnitBase> list;
public Q Add<Q>() where Q: UnitBase, new()
{
var newItem = Activator.CreateInstance<Q>();
newItem.SetContainer(this);
list.Add(newItem);
return newItem;
}
public IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units => list.Select(i => i);
public bool Contains(string name) =>
Units.Any(unit => unit.Name == name);
}
Create a base class for your AUnit and BUnit types condensing all common functionality:
public abstract class UnitBase
{
protected UnitBase()
{
}
public IContainer Container { get; private set; }
public int SomeField;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public void SetContainer(IContainer container)
{
Container = container;
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
if (Container.Contains(newName))
return false;
this.Name = newName; //No need to use String.Copy
return true;
}
}
Implement your concrete types:
public class BUnit : UnitBase
{
public int SpecificBProperty { get; private set; }
public BUnit()
{
}
}
Shortcomings of this approach? Well, the container must be of type <UnitBase>, I've removed the generic type because it really wasn't doing much in this particular case as it would be invariant in the generic type.
Also, keep in mind that nothing in the type system avoids the following:
myContainer.Add<BUnit>();
myContainer.Add<AUnit>();
If having two different types in the same container is not an option then this whole set up kind of crumbles down. This issue was present in the previous solution too so its not something new, I simply forgot to point it out.
InBetween , I am very thankful to you for your advices. Actually I can't say that I understood your answer in full, but using your ideas I have done what I want.
Looks like my variant works well. However I would like to hear your (and everyone) opinions about code described below. The main goal of this structure is creating non-homogeneous trees. So could you estimate it from this side.
First of all. We need to create interfaces for both classes. We describe there all "cross-used" functions.
public interface IUnit<T>
{
string Name { get;}
void SetContainer(T t);
bool Rename(String newName);
}
public interface IContainer
{
bool IsNameBusy(String newName);
int Count { get; }
}
Next. Create Base for Unit Classes for future inheritance. We will use in this inheritors methods from Container Base so we need generic properties and IUnit interface.
class UnitBase<T> : IUnit<T> where T : IContainer
Unfortunately I don't know yet how to solve the problem with Constructor parameters. That is why I use method
SetContainer(T container).
Code:UnitBase
class UnitBase<T> : IUnit<T> where T : IContainer
{
protected T Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public UnitBase()
{
this.Name = "Default";
}
public void SetContainer(T container)
{
this.Container = container;
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
bool res = Container.IsNameBusy(newName);
if (!res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return !res;
}
}
Next. Create ContainerBase
ContainerBase should:
1) has IContainer interface.
2)has information about what it will contain:
... where U : IUnit<C>, new()
3)and .... has information about what itself is. This information we need to pass as parameter to SetContainer() method.
Code ContainerBase:
class ContainerBase<U, C> : IContainer //U - Unit Class. C-Container Class
where U : IUnit<C>, new()
where C : ContainerBase<U, C>
{
protected List<U> Units;
public U this[int index] { get { return Units[index]; } }
public ContainerBase()//ctor
{
this.Units = new List<U>();
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new U());
this.Units.Last().SetContainer(((C)this));//may be a bit strange but actualy this will have the same type as <C>
}
public bool IsNameBusy(String newName)
{
bool res = false;
foreach (var unt in this.Units)
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = true;
break;
}
}
return res;
}
public int Count { get { return this.Units.Count; } }
}
Cast ((TContainer)(this)) may be is a bit strange. But using ContainerBase we always should use NewInheritorContainer. So this cast is just do nothing…looks like...
Finally. This classes can be used like in this example.
class SheetContainer : ContainerBase<SheetUnit,SheetContainer> {public SheetContainer(){}}
class SheetUnit : UnitBase<SheetContainer>
{
public CellContainer Cells;
public PictureContainer Pictures;
public SheetUnit()
{
this.Cells = new CellContainer();
this.Pictures = new PictureContainer();
}
}
class CellContainer : ContainerBase<CellUnit, CellContainer> { public CellContainer() { } }
class CellUnit : UnitBase<CellContainer>
{
public string ValuePr;//Private Field
private const string ValuePrDefault = "Default";
public string Value//Property for Value
{
//All below are Just For Example.
get
{
return this.ValuePr;
}
set
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
{
this.ValuePr = ValuePrDefault;
}
else
{
this.ValuePr = String.Copy(value);
}
}
}
public CellUnit()
{
this.ValuePr = ValuePrDefault;
}
}
class PictureContainer : ContainerBase<PictureUnit, PictureContainer> { public PictureContainer() { } }
class PictureUnit : UnitBase<PictureContainer>
{
public int[,] Pixels{get;private set;}
public PictureUnit()
{
this.Pixels=new int[,]{{10,20,30},{11,12,13}};
}
public int GetSizeX()
{
return this.Pixels.GetLength(1);
}
public int GetSizeY()
{
return this.Pixels.GetLength(0);
}
public bool LoadFromFile(string path)
{
return false;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SheetContainer Sheets = new SheetContainer();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets[0].Pictures.Add();
Sheets[1].Cells.Add();
Sheets[2].Pictures.Add();
Sheets[2].Cells.Add();
Sheets[2].Cells[0].Value = "FirstTest";
bool res= Sheets[0].Rename("First");//res=true
res=Sheets[2].Rename("First");//res =false
int res2 = Sheets.Count;
res2 = Sheets[2].Pictures[0].Pixels[1, 2];//13
res2 = Sheets[2].Pictures.Count;//1
res2 = Sheets[1].Pictures.Count;//0
res2 = Sheets[0].Pictures[0].GetSizeX();//3
Console.ReadKey();
}
Looks like it works like I want. But I didn’t test it full.
Let me say Thank you again, InBetween.
I would like to write a base class which implements the basic structure of a lazy static pattern.
public class LazyStatic<T>
{
private static T _static;
public static T Static
{
get
{
if (_static == null) _static = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
return _static;
}
}
}
Once I am done with this base class, I would use it like
public class MyOtherClass : LazyStatic<MyOtherClass>
{
...
}
Is the base class correctly implemented?
You are assuming that T has a parameterless constructor, but you don't restrict you generic class so that the compiler knows that:
public class LazyStatic<T> where T : new()
{
private static T _static;
public static T Static
{
get
{
if (_static == null) _static = new T();
return _static;
}
}
}
I have the following classes, and when I call CreateQuerySettings on the BaseScriptConfigurationList, it returns the new QuerySettings from ConfigurationList, rather than the HierarchicalQuerySettings value in BaseScriptConfigurationList:
public abstract class ConfigurationList<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum>
{
public QuerySettings<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return new QuerySettings<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum>();
}
}
public class BaseScriptConfigurationList : EditableConfigurationList<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>
{
public BaseScriptConfigurationList(ConfigurationManager configurationManager)
: base(configurationManager, InternalAdminObjectType.BaseScript)
{
_BaseScriptPageListWatcher = new ConfigurationList<BaseScriptPageConfiguration, BaseScriptPageConfiguration.Property>.
ConfigurationWatcher(null);
_ConfigurationWatcher.ChildWatchers.Add(_BaseScriptPageListWatcher);
}
public new QuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return new HierarchicalQuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property, BaseScriptQueryChildrenSettings>();
}
}
Edit: I make the call from another class where TConfigurationObjectList is BaseScriptConfigurationList. I've added the constructor to the code above so you can see what it's doing. Please note that EditableConfigurationList inherits from ConfigurationList.
TConfigurationObjectList cl = (TConfigurationObjectList)typeof(TConfigurationObjectList).GetConstructor(new Type[] { typeof(ConfigurationManager) }).Invoke(new object[] { Manager.ConfigurationManager });
var querySettings = cl.CreateQuerySettings();
When I make this call, it goes into the ConfigurationList.CreateQuerySettings method.
How can I hide the CreateQuerySettings method, so that when I call it from the BaseScriptConfigurationList class, I get a HierarchicalQuerySettings object?
The new modifier can be beasty. Note that you are hiding and not overriding in your example. You are not showing that part of the code, but I assume you have this situation:
class Base
{
public static void BaseMethod() { Console.WriteLine("BASE!"); }
}
class Derived : Base
{
// Hides Base.BaseMethod()
new public static void BaseMethod() { Console.WriteLine("DERIVED!"); }
}
Base a = new Base();
a.BaseMethod(); // -> "BASE!"
Base b = new Derived();
b.BaseMethod(); // -> "BASE!"
Derived b = new Derived();
b.BaseMethod(); // -> "DERIVED!"
In BaseScriptConfigurationList.CreateQuerySettings()
you're return type is QuerySettings<T,T> so you will always get that type as a return value, but you are returning a HierarchicalQuerySettings. You can one, change the return type of CreateQuerySettings() to HierarchicalQuerySettings or two, cast the object to its child type "HierarchicalQuerySettings". If you really want to hide it, you can do this:
public class newclass : BaseScriptConfigurationList
{
public new HierarchicalQuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return (HierarchicalQuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>)base.CreateQuerySettings();
}
}
But that doesn't really seem efficient and i advise against it. Like i said, i maybe missing some other requirement, but based on the info that you gave..
Basically, what I'm seeing (and making assumptions) that TConfigurationObjectList Inhertis from ConfigurationList somewhere along the lines, so on and so forth, all the way up to EditableConfigurationList. since you are dynamically creating an instance of the class TConfigurationObjectList, and calling the method from that point, you will be calling the base ConfigurationList member CreateQuerySettings. You do not have access to the new CreateQuerySettings. If you are creating the class BaseScriptConfigurationList instance at this point, cast the object ((BaseScriptConfigurationList)cl).CreateQuerySettings(). That being said. if you do not know what you have at runtime:
var obj = typeof(TConfigurationObjectList).GetConstructor(new Type[] { typeof(ConfigurationManager) }).Invoke(new object[] { Manager.ConfigurationManager });
var cl = (obj as BaseScriptConfigurationList) ?? (TConfigurationObjectList)obj;
// or do something else
var querySettings = cl.CreateQuerySettings();
Note i am assuming your architecture is roughly set up like this:
public abstract class ConfigurationList<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum>
{
public QuerySettings<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return new QuerySettings<TConfigurationObject, TPropertyEnum>();
}
}
public class TConfigurationObjectList : ConfigurationList<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>
{
}
public class EditableConfigurationList<T, T1> : TConfigurationObjectList
{
protected EditableConfigurationList(ConfigurationManager configurationManager, object baseScript)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class BaseScriptConfigurationList : EditableConfigurationList<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>
{
public BaseScriptConfigurationList(ConfigurationManager configurationManager)
: base(configurationManager, InternalAdminObjectType.BaseScript)
{
}
public new QuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property> CreateQuerySettings()
{
return new HierarchicalQuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property, BaseScriptQueryChildrenSettings>();
}
}
public class QuerySettings<T, T1>
{
}
public class HierarchicalQuerySettings<T, T1, T2> : QuerySettings<BaseScriptConfiguration, BaseScriptConfiguration.Property>
{
}
public class BaseScriptQueryChildrenSettings
{
}
public class BaseScriptPageConfiguration
{
public class Property
{
}
}
public class InternalAdminObjectType
{
public static object BaseScript { get; set; }
}
public class ConfigurationManager
{
}
public class BaseScriptConfiguration
{
public class Property
{
}
}
Create a base interface for the ConfigurationList class (say IConfigurationList) and use this interface as the data type for the variable cl instead of TConfigurationList.
I have been struggling a bit with some reflection code that I though would be simple. Essentially, I have an interface that defines a method. Then, I have an abstract class that provides a base implementation of that method.
The concrete classes can contain nested instances of other classes that can also derive from the same base class. It can be illustrated by the following sample:
using System.Linq;
public interface ISampleObject
{
bool IsValid();
}
public abstract class SampleObjectBase : ISampleObject
{
public bool IsValid()
{
var returnValue = true;
// Self-validation sets the return value.
var childProperties = this.GetType().GetProperties().Where(pi => typeof(ISampleObject).IsAssignableFrom(pi.PropertyType));
foreach (var childProperty in childProperties)
{
// var childInstance = ????; // Need the actual *existing* instance property, cast to ISampleObject.
// if (childInstance.IsValid() != true)
// {
// returnValue = false;
// }
}
return returnValue;
}
}
public sealed class InnerSampleObject : SampleObjectBase
{
}
public sealed class OuterSampleObject : SampleObjectBase
{
public InnerSampleObject DerivedSampleObject { get; set; }
}
My problem is that in the commented code for SampleObjectBase, I cannot get the concrete instance of the matching PropertyInfo value. If I look at the PropertyInfo object in the loop, I see that the type is correct, but I cannot find a way to directly access the instance that already exists in the implementation. So, when executing, for example, OuterSampleObject.IsValid(), the code finds the PropertyInfo for InnerSampleObject, as expected. I want to execute InnerSampleObject.IsValid().
I have tried (multiple variations of):
var childIsValid = (bool)contractProperty.PropertyType.InvokeMember("IsValid", BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, null, null);
And:
var childInstance = (ISampleContract)contractProperty;
The problem with the first one is that I can't pass null in as the target for InvokeMember, as IsValid() is not static (nor can it be, since I am focused on the actual instance). The second on is just a lame cast, but is the gist of what I want to accomplish.
The sample code above is just a minimalist example of what I want to achieve. The full code is part of a self-validating DTO that recursively checks the entire hierarchy and returns what children have validation issues and what they are.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
How about:
var instance = childProperty.GetValue(this, null) as ISampleObject;
if (instance != null)
{
if (!instance.IsValid())
return false;
}
Please see if the code below is what you are looking for. My changes are marked with a comment starting with //VH:
public interface ISampleObject
{
bool IsValid();
}
public abstract class SampleObjectBase : ISampleObject
{
public virtual bool IsValid()
{
var returnValue = true; //VH: Changed value from false to true
// Self-validation sets the return value.
var childProperties = this.GetType().GetProperties().Where(pi => typeof(ISampleObject).IsAssignableFrom(pi.PropertyType));
foreach (var childProperty in childProperties)
{
//VH: Here is how you get the value of the property
var childInstance = (ISampleObject)childProperty.GetValue(this, null);
if (childInstance.IsValid() != true)
{
returnValue = false;
}
}
return returnValue;
}
}
public sealed class InnerSampleObject : SampleObjectBase
{
}
public sealed class OuterSampleObject : SampleObjectBase
{
//VH: Added this constructor
public OuterSampleObject()
{
DerivedSampleObject = new InnerSampleObject();
}
public InnerSampleObject DerivedSampleObject { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
OuterSampleObject c = new OuterSampleObject();
c.IsValid();
}
}
Just use
var childInstance = (ISampleObject)childProperty.GetValue(this, null);