Where to create the class

Where to create the class - c#

I'm trying to model a production system with "facility" as Class and some subclasses down to "Activity". The facility has a name as only parameter (at the moment), and I'd like to create an instance of the class reading the name as an input from a textbox. Since "activity" is inherit the properties from it's "parent classes" I'll create an instance of the class "activity" and not it's parent.
The problem is that I don't know where to create the class and how to pass it so that when I add the first subclass "Workstation" I can edit the properties of the same "activity" I created earlier.
I don't really have any code to add at this point unfortunately, but please tell me if there's anything special you'd like to see and I'll try to add it to the post.
And by the way, it's in the shape of a WinForm application with a GUI I'm trying to do this.

There are a couple things to note here. First, you'll want to use the Composite pattern to encapsulate the relationships between your classes. (For those who don't understand the OP's type hierarchy, it does make perfect sense in a factory context. There are many activities going on, which can be grouped into workstations and at a higher level into facilities.)
So, you should probably have a base Activity class (that supports the Composite pattern by exposing a collection of child activities), and then your "levels" (like Facility and Workstation) will inherit from Activity. Each of these classes will have unique properties.
The following classes should be created in their respective files, e.g. Activity.cs, Factory.cs, Workstation.cs:
class Activity
{
// An attribute that every Activity may need: a displayable name.
// This might be useful if you have a TreeView, e.g., showing all the activities.
public string Name { get; private set; }
// Every Activity could have child activities - this is the Composite pattern.
// You can loop through these to navigate through the hierarchy of your data.
// (This is often done using recursion; see example below with GetAllWorkstations().)
public List<Activity> ChildActivities { get; private set; }
public Activity()
{
ChildActivities = new List<Activity>();
}
public override string ToString() { return Name; }
}
class Factory : Activity
{
public string City { get; private set; }
public string Address { get; private set; }
}
class Workstation : Activity
{
public string WorkstationNumber { get; private set; }
}
The responsibility of loading your model then has to be handled somewhere. A good place to do it is in your main form. For example, you might write code like this:
class MainForm : Form
{
private readonly List<Factory> topLevelFactoryActivities;
public MainForm()
{
// ... other code
topLevelFactoryActivities = LoadTopLevelFactoryActivities();
}
private IEnumerable<Factory> LoadTopLevelFactoryActivities()
{
var factories = new List<Factory>();
// TODO: Load the factories, e.g. from a database or a file.
// You can load all the child objects for each factory here as well,
// or wait until later ("lazy-loading") if you want to.
// NOTE: If this becomes complex, you can move the LoadTopLevelFactoryActivities()
// method to its own class, which then becomes your "data access layer" (DAL).
return factories;
}
}
Now, if you want to find all the workstations that are part of a particular factory, you would write a method like the following on the Factory class:
class Factory : Activity
{
// ... other code
public IEnumerable<Workstation> GetAllWorkstations()
{
return GetWorkstationsRecursive(this);
}
private IEnumerable<Workstation> WorkstationsIn(Activity parentActivity)
{
foreach (var workstation in parentActivity.ChildActivities.OfType<Workstation>)
{
// Uses a C# feature called 'iterators' - really powerful!
yield return workstation;
}
foreach (var childActivity in parentActivity.ChildActivities)
{
// Using recursion to go down the hierarchy
foreach (var workstation in WorkstationsIn(childActivity))
{
yield return workstation;
}
}
}
}
You would call it like so, e.g. in your main form:
class MainForm : Form
{
// ... other code
public MainForm()
{
// ... other code
// Assume this is assigned to the factory that you want to get all the workstations for
Factory myFactory;
var workstations = myFactory.GetAllWorkstations();
// Now you can use 'workstations' as the items source for a list, for example.
}
}
As an example use case, you might want to show a second form (that belongs to the main form) which shows a list of all the workstations. (In practice you probably shouldn't create too many windows; prefer building a nonoverlapping layout. But just to show how you might pass the model instances around...)
class WorkstationListForm : Form
{
private IEnumerable<Workstation> workstations;
public WorkstationListForm(IEnumerable<Workstation> workstations)
{
this.workstations = workstations;
//TODO: You can now use 'workstations' as the ItemsSource of a list view in this form.
}
}
You could, of course, make topLevelFactoryActivities public on your MainForm and pass the variable this of the MainForm to the WorkstationListForm constructor instead. Then you could access the member on MainForm like this:
public WorkstationListForm(MainForm mainForm)
{
var topLevelFactoryActivities = mainForm.topLevelFactoryActivities;
// Now WorkstationListForm has full access to all the data on MainForm. This may or
// may not be helpful (it's usually best to minimize sharing and public fields).
}
Second, you'll want to use a proper separation between your view (user interface code/classes) and your model (the Activity hierarchy).
Third, if there's going to be any kind of live data being pushed to the user interface then you'll need a databinding mechanism to automatically update the view whenever the model changes.
In general, #2 & #3 are popularly addressed via the Model-View-ViewModel pattern. There is an excellent tutorial here for building an MVVM app using WinForms/C#.
That should get you started, at least. Also see an answer to a similar question. (Sorry about promoting my own answer, but I don't want to type out the whole example twice. Please forgive me. :))

Related

Storing/Saving a Method and later re-calling it

What I am currently atempting to make is an inventory system. I wonder if I can store the current method and then open the inventory, and when I am done there, reopen/recall the previus method that ran.

You haven't provided very much information but I can tell you don't want to store a method, you want to store an object.
An object is an instance of a class. Depending on the kind of class you have you can either create multiple instances of a class and instantiate them multiple times across your application. Or alternatively you can create single instances of an object that you use throughout your entire application/game.
From the sounds of it, you want to use a singleton class that retains the current values of the user's inventory. So if you interact with the inventory class in one part of your program, you would like to then view and interact with the same previously modified values stored within the singleton from another part of your program.
I can't give you a concrete answer to your problem, but a possible Singleton class for your use case would look something like this;
public sealed class Inventory
{
private static readonly Inventoryinstance = new Inventory();
// Explicit static constructor to tell C# compiler
// not to mark type as before field init
static Inventory()
{
}
private Inventory()
{
// optionally, pre-populate with data stored in database when constructed
}
public static Inventory Instance
{
get
{
return instance;
}
}
public List<InventoryItem> InventoryItems { get; set; } = new List<InventoryItem>();
public void AddItemToInventory(InventoryItem item) {
InventoryItems.Add(item);
}
public void RemoveItemFromInventory(InventoryItem item) {
InventoryItems.Remove(item);
}
}
You can use this site for reference - https://csharpindepth.com/articles/singleton
If you have an application that utilises DI, you can create singleton instances that are injectable into your other app classes. This is a better way of handling singletons as they are handled by an IoC system rather than being made static for the entire application to access.

Accessing a property in one ViewModel from another

I want main viewmodel to have a certain list, and then access from many other viewmodels.
For example, in MainViewModel.cs I will have a list of 50 numbers,
then in NumListViewModel.cs, I'd like to access it in order to show it as a list, and in AddNumViewModel.cs I'd like to be able to update that list.
It's been suggested that I use events / evenaggerator, which I did, but unfortunately, for all I know all I can do with it is send a num from one view to another and tell it to update the list, but the problem is, as the program grows, I will need to have a lot of subscribers in the main view model, and when something actually happens I will have to "publish" events according to the number of subscribers which makes it even harder to maintain.
I also found another answer, instructing to create an instance of anotherVM within the mainVM, with a parameter set to "this" which is a reference to the mainVM.
It works, but then again, it could get quite long.
So my question is, is there a better way to access a property from another VM?
Like literally have the an instance of the class that holds the list in the mainVM, and then just be able to update / access it from the other VMs, without having to explicitly program which VM can. Would make life so much easier.
In your answer, please try to avoid suggesting frameworks.
Although there are some really good ones, I want to be able to do at least that by myself.
For example:
MainVM.cs:
public class MainVM
{
List lst = new List(); //Let's just say it's full...
}
OtherVM.cs:
public class OtherVM
{
lst.Add(3);
}
PS: Yes I know it has been asked already, and yes I have done my research, BUT I the answers I found are too 'static', I guess?

If you want direct access to the list from an external ViewModel, then your options are to:
Pass the List to the OtherVM as a constructor argument or public property. Then the OtherVM can treat it like a member.
Pass the MainVM to the OtherVM as a constructor argument or public property. Then the OtherVM can access the List by first accessing the MainVM.
Example:
public class MainVM
{
public List<XX> MyList { get; set; }
}
public class OtherVM
{
public MainVM TheMainVM { get; set; }
public OtherVM(MainVM theMainVM)
{
TheMainVM = theMainVM;
// Access the MainVM's list
TheMainVM.MyList.Add(stuff);
}
}
Give the MainVM a static property called "Default" or "Instance," so you can access the static instance of MainVM from within OtherVM, without assigning it as a member field.
Example:
public class MainVM
{
private static MainVM _instance = new MainVM();
public static MainVM Instance { get { return _instance; } }
public List<XX> MyList { get; set; }
//other stuff here
}
//From within OtherVM:
MainVM.Instance.MyList.Add(stuff);

How to separate controller from model when already mixed?

I'm not sure if this is exactly a MVC pattern, but what I'm trying to do is separate all the data layer (which in a few words is all that would be serialized to an XML file), from its actions. Implementing MVC just for the sake of it is really not my aim here. So if this is not exactly MVC, I'm fine with that.
Say, for instance, I have this classes (these are just sample classes that try to illustrate my problem, not my actual classes):
public class MixedSubClass
{
public string SomeData {get;set;}
public void DoSomeActionWhichRequiresControls(Control someControl)
{
// do stuff
}
}
public class MixedClass
{
private Control _SomeControl;
public List<MixedSubClass> _SubClasses = new List<MixedSubClass>();
public List<MixedSubClass> SubClasses { get { return _SubClasses; } }
public MixedClass(Control someControl)
{
_SomeControl = someControl;
}
public void DoSomeMoreActionsWhichRequiresControls()
{
foreach (var subClass in SubClasses)
{
subClass.DoSomeActionWhichRequiresControls(_SomeControl);
}
// Do more stuff
}
}
So when I serialize MixedClass, only public fields get serialized, which is what I want. But now I want to have an only data layer, which doesn't even require the Windows.Forms assembly. I want to stay with this:
public class MixedSubClass
{
public string SomeData {get;set;}
}
public class MixedClass
{
public List<MixedSubClass> _SubClasses = new List<MixedSubClass>();
public List<MixedSubClass> SubClasses { get { return _SubClasses; } }
}
And put all this into an independent assembly. But my problem now is how to turn this back to the previous thing. First thing I thought was using extension methods, but, as you can see in my sample code, sometimes I need to store some value that is not serializable, such as the Control _SomeControl. Also, on real life, these lists are lists of lists, trees and more complicated stuff like that so I need a some good foundation before I get started (actually I already have a project with all my data layer by itself which compiles fine without Windows.Forms, but now I'm having trouble putting it back together).
How would you handle this? Should I just not separate the data layer this way?

I think you are doing fine so far. Your data layer should absolutley be free of references to UI controls (whether they be winform, web, etc).
While it is hard to give an exact code sample based on what you've posted, you need to add a set of controller-like classes that map your data (aka model) onto your user-interface (aka view). They should hold a reference to both the data and UI objects and be the ones to perform th work that you stripped out (DoSomeActionWhichRequiresControls).

Passing continuous data between WinForms

I am making a personal WinForms app. In my scenario say I have a C# Form1. Form1 is constantly getting live Exchange data from the Internet. Now I click a button on Form1 and Form2 opens. Now I want some values from Form1 on Form2.
I have a timer on Form2 which can collect data from Form1 but how?
I had tried to use properties but not able to do that as it updates only once as when we initialize Form2.
Any solution?
Also, how can I pass a single instance of a class to both forms, if they are not being created at the same time?

I. Solution: Use a Common Data Source
Method 1: Data Source with Events
Well, if it were me, I would probably not be trying to directly get the data from Form1. Instead, I would set up a common datasource, and then you would even be able to eliminate the timer on Form2 and drive it by when the data comes in if you like. (Or you can leave it and just pull from the datasource as your desired intervals.)
It would be something like this:
Data Source class
public class ExchangeCommonDataSource
{
public event EventHandler NewDataReceived;
public void FireNewDataReceieved()
{
if (NewDataReceived != null)
NewDataReceived();
}
private string mySomeData1 = "";
public string SomeData1
{
get
{
return SomeData1;
}
set
{
SomeData1 = value;
FireNewDataReceieved();
}
}
// properties for any other data
}
Then, when you are opening your forms, you'll just create an instance of ExchangeCommonDataSource, and pass it to both of the forms. In the form that is receiving the data you'll want to create an event handler function, and wherever you pass it the data source, you'll hook up that event.
example: receiving class code
public void HandleDataReceived(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// display the data
DoSomethingWith(mySource.SomeData1);
// etc...
}
private ExchangeCommonDataSource mySource;
public void SetDataSource(ExchangeCommonDataSource newSource)
{
mySource = newSource;
mySource.NewDataRecieved += new EventHandler(HandleDataReceived);
}
Then, in your first form, you just set the properties you want. You can actually have notifications that specified the actual data to load, either through separate event handlers, or by creating your own derived EventArgs and then using EventHandler<ExchangeCommonEventArgs> instead of a regular event handler.
example: main form data accessor
public void GetDataFromExchange()
{
mySource.SomeData1 = GetSomeData1FromExchange();
}
Also, this way you're not limited to having just those two forms communicate; if you decide to split it up with different forms, you could have each of them have a copy of the data source and each of them could handle the event or new events you define, and you're not tied to a model where you're expecting to communicate directly between each other. This would also allow, for instance, creating a separate class which writes some log data to disk, or whatever else you can imagine, without making significant changes to any of your existing stuff.
II. Extensibility for External Updates
The Dispatcher Base Class
So, what if you want to update to eventually send to another application or another machine even?
Well, this is actually very well accounted for since you've not got any dependencies on the forms left. So, say you wanted to support three methods: the initial, form to form method; sending via a named pipe to another app on the same machine; and TCP/IP to another machine entirely. All you would need to do is to define a class that acts as a dispatcher, hook it up as a receiver, and then you can hook up that object to take the events coming from the form and put the data wherever you want.
It should be fairly straightforward to define an abstract class or interface to do this, and then simply derive a class for any mode you want to support:
example: a notional abstract Dispatcher class
public class ExchangeDataDispatcher :
IDisposable
{
public ExchangeDataDispatcher(ExchangeCommonDataSource parDataSource)
{
myDataSource = parDataSource;
myDataSource.HandleDataReceived +=
new EventHandler(HandleDataReceived);
DispatcherInitialization();
}
private ExchangeCommonDataSource myDataSource;
private void HandleDataReceived(object sender, e EventArgs)
{
// here you could record statistics or whatever about the data
DispatcherHandleDataReceived(EventArgs);
}
protected abstract void DispatcherHandleDataReceived(e EventArgs);
protected abstract void DispatcherShutdown();
// significantly ripped from Microsoft's page on IDisposable
private bool disposed = false;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
// Check to see if Dispose has already been called.
if(!this.disposed)
{
// If disposing equals true, dispose all managed
// and unmanaged resources.
if(disposing)
{
// call a function which can be overridden in derived
// classes
DispatcherShutdown();
}
// Note disposing has been done.
disposed = true;
}
}
}
see the Microsoft page on IDisposable for some great example code and more information on IDisposable...
Deriving Dispatchers for Other Communication Methods
There's no way to make the form itself derive from this class, but there's no real need since you can just hook up as before. But, as quick example (just notional, not actually implementing the protocols, and you really should really consider the best way to implement these types of things, but I wanted to give you a fairly comprehensive example of what it takes, it's not as simple as the really really naive versions tend to be. )
example: (very) notional Pipe-based Dispatcher
// add these to your using statments
using System.IO.Pipes;
using System.Threading;
// NOTE: take all the async stuff with a grain of salt; this should give you a
// basic idea but there's no way I've gotten it right without actually testing
// and debugging everything. See the link
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6710444/named-pipes-server-read-timeout
// for some information on why it has to be done this way: basically timeout
// is not supported for named pipe server streams.
public class ExchangeDataLocalMachineDispatcher :
ExchangeDataDispatcher
{
// see http://www.switchonthecode.com/tutorials/dotnet-35-adds-named-pipes-support
// for some info on named pipes in .NET
public ExchangeDataLocalMachineDispatcher(
ExchangeCommonDataSource parDataSource,
NamedPipeServerStream ServerPipe
) :
base(parDataSource)
{
myPipe = ServerPipe;
// do any extra initialization, etc. here, negotiation for instance
StartPipeThread();
}
private NamedPipeServerStream myPipe;
private ExchangeCommonDataSource myDataSource;
// assuming you have PipeMessage defined and that your handler
// fills them in.
private List<PipeMessage> myOutgoingMessages =
new List<PipeMessage>();
private Thread myPipeThread;
private bool EndPipeListener = false;
private AutoResetEvent myWaitEvent = null;
private AutoResetEvent myDataReadyToGoEvent = null;
// set this to something reasonable for the response timeout
private int WaitTimeout = 10000;
// example: at least every minute there should be data to send
private int WaitForDataToSendTimeout = 60000;
private void StartPipeThread()
{
IAsyncResult LastResult = null;
Action<IAsyncResult> WaitForResult =
(a) =>
{
LastResult = a;
myWaitEvent.Set();
}
myPipeThread = new System.Threading.ThreadStart(
() =>
{
try
{
myWaitEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
myPipe.BeginWaitForConnection(
WaitForResult, null
);
bool TimedOut = !myWaitEvent.WaitOne(WaitTimeout);
if (TimedOut || !LastResult.IsCompleted)
throw new Exception("Error: pipe operation error.");
while (!EndPipeListener)
{
byte[] Response = myPipe.BeginRead(
WaitForResult, null
);
myWaitEvent.WaitOne(WaitTimeout);
if (TimedOut || !LastResult.IsCompleted)
throw new Exception("Error: pipe operation error.");
// another assumed function to handle ACKs and such
HandleResponse(Response);
myWaitEvent.Set();
// now wait for data and send
bool TimedOut =
myDataReadyToGoEvent.WaitOne(WaitForDataToSendTimeout);
if (TimedOut || !LastResult.IsCompleted)
throw new Exception("Error: no data to send.");
// an assumed function that will pull the messages out of
// the outgoing message list and send them via the pipe
SendOutgoingMessages();
myDataReadyToGoEvent.Set();
}
myWaitEvent.Set();
}
finally
{
// here you can clean up any resources, for instance you need
// to dispose the wait events, you can leave the pipe for the
// DispatcherShutdown method to fire in case something else
// wants to handle the error and try again... this is all
// fairly naive and should be thought through but I wanted
// to give you some tools you can use.
// can't remember if you're supposed to use .Close
// .Dispose or both off the top of my head; I think it's
// one or the other.
myWaitEvent.Dispose();
myDataReady.Dispose();
myWaitEvent = null;
myDataReady = null;
}
}
);
}
protected PipeMessage[] ConstructEventMessage(e EventArgs)
{
// actually we're not using the event args here but I left it
// as a placeholder for if were using the derived ones.
return
PipeMessage.CreateMessagesFromData(
myDataSource.GetMessageData()
);
}
protected override void DispatcherHandleDataReceived(e EventArgs)
{
// create a packet to send out; assuming that the
// ConstructEventMessage method is defined
myOutgoingMessages.Add(ConstructEventMessage(e));
}
protected override void DispatcherShutdown()
{
// this is called from the base class in the Dispose() method
// you can destroy any remaining resources here
if (myWaitEvent != null)
{
myWaitEvent.Dispose();
}
// etc. and
myPipe.Dispose();
}
// you could theoretically override this method too: if you do, be
// sure to call base.Dispose(disposing) so that the base class can
// clean up if resources are there to be disposed.
// protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
// {
// // do stuff
// base.Dispose(disposing);
// }
}
Phew. Note that I'm very unhappy currently with the length of the StartPipeThread function, and I would definitely be refactoring that.
So, you could also implement this for TCP/IP sockets, or whatever protocol you can imagine, and it's all handled without having to continually modify the classes from the first section.
My apologies for the quality of any of the code there; I am open to suggestion/correction/flaming about it, and I'll do my best to make corrections if you just let me know. :P
III. Putting the Data Where it's Needed
After you have this set up, you'll need to pass the same data to whatever forms are using it. If you're not creating both your forms at the same time, then you'll need some way to get each destination a reference to the same data source. (Note: the numbering of the options is in no way intended to imply these are your only choices!)
Here are a few options for doing so:
Option 1: via Property on your main Form
This method is appropriate if your main form is responsible for creating each of the child forms, for instance, through menu items. You simply create a member variable to hold the data, and wherever you create the data, store a reference to it in that member. If you have multiple instances of the source, you can store them e.g. in a dictionary that allows you to look up the one you need.
example: code for main Form
private ExchangeCommonDataSource myData { get; set; }
// you can also store in something that lets you identify multiple
// possible data sources; in this case, you could use, say, email address
// as a lookup: myData["mickey#example.com"];
//private Dictionary<string, ExchangeCommonDataSource> myData =
// new Dictionary<string, ExchangeCommonDataSource>();
public frmMyMainForm()
{
InitializeComponent();
// ... other initialization for the main form ...
// create the data here and save it in a private member on your
// form for later; this doesn't have to be in the constructor,
// just make sure you save a reference to the source when you
// do create your first form that uses the source.
myData = new ExchangeCommonDataSource();
}
// then, in the methods that actually create your form
// e.g. if creating from a menu item, the handlers
public void FirstFormCreatorMethod()
{
frmFirstForm = new frmFirstForm(myData);
frmFirstForm.MdiParent = this;
frmFirstForm.Show();
}
public void SecondFormCreatorMethod()
{
frmSecondForm = new frmSecondForm(myData);
frmSecondForm.MdiParent = this;
frmSecondForm.Show();
}
Option II: static Properties on your Data Source
This option can be used if the forms are being created externally from the main form, in which case you will not have access to its methods. The idea behind this method is that you want an easy way to find whatever item you need, independent of the main form itself, and by providing a static method, additional data consumers can find the sources on their own using properties accessible with access only to the class declaration and then some sort of key if there can be multiple sources.
example: ExchangeCommonDataSource.cs
// a dummy source class; this is just the parts that were relevant
// to this particular discussion.
public partial class ExchangeCommonDataSource
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string OptionalString { get; set; }
public int MailboxNumber { get; set; }
public Guid SourceGuid { get; set; }
public long BigNumber { get; set; }
// these static members provide the functionality necessary to look
// retrieve an existing source just through the class interface
// this holds the lookup of Guid -> Source for later retreival
static Dictionary<Guid, ExchangeCommonDataSource> allSources =
new Dictionary<Guid,ExchangeCommonDataSource>();
// this factory method looks up whether the source with the passed
// Guid already exists; if it does, it returns that, otherwise it
// creates the data source and adds it to the lookup table
public static ExchangeCommonDataSource GetConnection(
Guid parSourceGuid, string parUsername, long parBigNumber
)
{
// there are many issues involved with thread safety, I do not
// guarantee that I got it right here, it's to show the idea. :)
// here I'm just providing some thread safety; by placing a lock
// around the sources to prevent two separate calls to a factory
// method from each creating a source with the same Guid.
lock (allSources)
{
ExchangeCommonDataSource RetVal;
allSources.TryGetValue(parSourceGuid, out RetVal);
if (RetVal == null)
{
// using member initializer, you can do this to limit the
// number of constructors; here we only need the one
RetVal = new ExchangeCommonDataSource(parSourceGuid) {
Username = parUsername, BigNumber = parBigNumber
};
allSources.Add(parSourceGuid, RetVal);
}
return RetVal;
}
}
// this function is actually extraneous since the GetConnection
// method will either create a new or return an existing source.
// if you had need to throw an exception if GetConnection was
// called on for existing source, you could use this to retrieve
public static
ExchangeCommonDataSource LookupDatasource(Guid parSourceGuid)
{
// again locking the sources lookup for thread-safety. the
// rules: 1. don't provide external access to allSources
// 2. everywhere you use allSources in the class,
// place a lock(allsources { } block around it
lock (allSources)
{
ExchangeCommonDataSource RetVal;
allSources.TryGetValue(parSourceGuid, out RetVal);
return RetVal;
}
}
// private constructor; it is private so we can rely on the
// fact that we only provide factory method(s) that insert the
// new items into the main dictionary
private ExchangeCommonDataSource(Guid SourceGuid)
{
// if you didn't want to use a factory, you could always do
// something like the following without it; note you will
// have to throw an error with this implementation because
// there's no way to recover.
//lock (allSources)
//{
// ExchangeCommonDataSource Existing;
// ExchangeCommonDataSource.allSources.
// TryGetValue(parSourceGuid, out Existing);
// if (Existing != null)
// throw new Exception("Requested duplicate source!");
//}
// ... initialize ...
}
}
now to access, the client just needs to have some sort of key to access the data:
example: frmClientClass.cs
public partial class frmClientClass
{
ExchangeCommonDataSource myDataSource = null;
public void InitializeSource(Guid parSourceGuid)
{
myDataSource = ExchangeCommonDataSource.GetConnection(parSourceGuid);
}
}
I find this a generally more compelling solution that Option 1, simply because anything that has access to the class and an ID can get the data source, and because it's fairly easy to implement, and it gives automatic support for doing multiple instances of your data source class.
It has fairly low overhead, and since getting a data source is, in most cases, something that is not going to be done in tight loops (and if it were, you would have local copies, not looking them up from a dictionary every time) any small performance loss should be worth the ease of use. And, best of all, even if you start with one data source, you can easily extend your application to more without having to rewrite any code or go to any further effort.
For instance, a very quick way to use this assuming you only have one data source would be just to use a known value for your Dictionary key, and then you just can hard code that in your second for for now. So, for the example, you could just have the empty GUID as your key, and use that for both your forms. i.e. the Main Form or your first data form would call the create method with Guid.Empty to create the data initially, and then you can just use that to access it when the time comes to open your second form.
Option 3: The 'Singleton' Pattern Class
Okay, I'm not going to spend much time or write code for this one, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. It's very similar to option 2, except, instead of having a static Dictionary to look up multiple data sources, you create a class that has one instance of the class stored in a static property, and you prevent (via exception) any attempts to create more classes. Then, you set all constructors to private, have them throw exceptions if the static variable already contains an object, and you create a getInstance() method which returns the single instance of the class, creating it if it's null.
Now, there are some little thread-safety trickiness issues with this that you will need to understand to write a traditional singleton, so be sure to understand those (there are questions on StackOverflow dealing with the issue). If you don't need any particular knowledge to construct the instance of the class, you can avoid the issues by simply initializing the variable where you declare it e.g. static MyClass theInstance = new MyClass();, and I highly recommend doing that if you do ever use one.
I have used Singletons in the (fairly distant) past, and it's not that they don't occasionally have their uses, especially in embedded systems. But, this is not an embedded system, and almost every time I used a Singleton in a GUI application, I regretted doing it because I ended up eventually re-writing it into something that would allow multiple instances. If you really just need one copy, all you have to do is put a member variable in the class that uses it, say, your main form, and make sure that you don't ever create but one. Doing this, you could even use the pattern by setting a static flag in the class that you can trigger an exception on; set it to true when you first create the object, and then if that's true you can throw your exception.
Anyway, my personal first rule for when to write a singleton is: don't do it unless you are certain you will never need more than one. If it passes that one, then the second rule is: you are wrong, there is a way it could happen, so just write it as a normal class and handle the singleton-ness of it in some other way. :) Seriously though, the real rule is, just don't do it unless you have get some a very solid reason or a significant benefit from doing it.
Oh, and to reiterate: it's very possible to accomplish the pattern of singleton, without writing the canonical singleton class. The pattern is fine, just do it in a way that when that need for a second instance of that class comes along, there is a very low cost to eliminate the pattern.
Option 4: A Separate Class
Option 4 is very similar to Option 2, but implemented in a second class. (In fact, if you ever think you might have multiple sources of data, it would be worthwhile to just start here, although it's a little more time to set up initially.) Instead of having your static items as members of that class, implement another class that has something like them and provides access. This is a way to decouple the class itself from the creating of it. For example, if you were writing a library, and you wanted to provide several different types of data source, you could implement a base class and then derive your other objects from the base class, and then provide creation mechanisms via a class that gives factory methods to create the different kinds.
In a situation like this you very well may not even want whatever is using your data source to have to know anything about the implementation of the data source classes at all, and only go through the base interface, and this provides an easy way to do that. If you had to write it all as base class static members, then you would be forcing a rewrite of the base every time you derived a new class, and it would also be forcing the base to know something about the derived classes, each of which is, in general, something to avoid. In other words, it's not that it's never useful, but don't do it without very good reason, and don't do it without understanding the implications.
example: code for external class
InfostoreBase.cs
// our data source base class; could do interface instead like:
// public interface IInfostoreBase
public abstract class InfostoreBase
{
public abstract int Information { get; set; }
public abstract string NameOfItem { get; set; }
public abstract decimal Cost { get; set; }
// ... etc ...
}
InfostoreEnterprise.cs
public class InfostoreHomeEdition :
InfostoreBase
{
public override int Information { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public override string NameOfItem { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public override decimal Cost { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public void SetFeatures(string parSomething) { /* ... */ }
}
InfostoreHomeEdition.cs
public class InfostoreEnterpriseEdition :
InfostoreBase
{
public override int Information { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public override string NameOfItem{ get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public override decimal Cost { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public void SetBaseDiscount(decimal parSomethingElse) { /* ... */ }
}
InfostoreProvider.cs
public class InfostoreProvider
{
static Dictionary<Guid, InfostoreBase> allSources =
new Dictionary<Guid,InfostoreBase>();
public static InfostoreBase
GetHomeConnection(Guid CustomerKey, string HomeFeatures)
{
lock (allSources)
{
InfostoreBase RetVal;
if (!ValidHomeKey(CustomerKey))
throw new
InvalidKeyException("not valid for Home Edition");
allSources.TryGetValue(CustomerKey, out RetVal);
if (RetVal == null)
{
RetVal = new InfostoreHomeEdition();
allSources.Add(CustomerKey, RetVal);
}
var ActualVersion = (InfostoreHomeEdition) RetVal;
RetVal.SetFeatures(HomeFeatures);
return RetVal;
}
}
public static InfostoreBase
GetEnterpriseConnection(Guid CustomerKey, decimal BaseDiscount)
{
lock (allSources)
{
InfostoreBase RetVal;
if (!ValidEnterpriseKey(CustomerKey))
throw new
InvalidKeyException("not valid for Enterprise Edition");
allSources.TryGetValue(CustomerKey, out RetVal);
if (RetVal == null)
{
RetVal = new InfostoreHomeEdition();
allSources.Add(CustomerKey, RetVal);
}
var ActualVersion = (InfostoreEnterpriseEdition) RetVal;
RetVal.SetBaseDiscount(CostBase);
return RetVal;
}
}
}
code in client class
private InfostoreBase myConnectionSource;
private void Initialize()
{
// ...
myConnectionSource =
InfostoreProvider.GetConnection(
myKey, isEnterprise, myData
);
//...
}
Closing
I think that covers a very good range of possible solutions; none of them is particularly hard to implement, and each has its own benefits and disadvantages. In general I would go for Option 2 or Option 4, but [broken record] it always depends on your exact situation. I think it would be fairly easy to use extend these to handle lots of different situations. And of course if there are any problems, just let me know.

Another possible way to handle this would be to create some interfaces to represent the role of data provider and data receiver, and then you would implement those interfaces on your form. It would be very similar to doing it with a common data source, but instead of running things through an object, you would implement the interfaces and the data can go directly where it is needed. It may be a bit more efficient that doing it through a DataSource, although it's hard to say without knowing all the specifics, but if you are really transferring loads of data putting it through a separate datasource could cost you some efficiency, especially if you never have a need for all the data in one spot.
In the example code here I'm showing what it would look like if you implemented your own event args for different types of data, this also could be used in a common data source for the events if you wanted to be able to have a little more granularity over what got sent when. (Please keep in mind I've typed this all in on the webpage without trying to compile it; this is supposed to give you the idea of how to do it, but its possible (I would estimate 100% change) that I didn't get everything in perfectly. :D)
public class FirstDataKindEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public FirstDataKindEventArgs(int parID, string parName, string parOtherInfo)
{
Id = parId;
Name = parName;
OtherInfo = parOtherInfo;
}
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string OtherInfo { get; set; }
}
// plus other event arg definitions
public interface IExchangeDataProvider
{
event EventHandler<FirstDataKindEventArgs> FirstDataKindReceived;
event EventHandler<SecondDataKindEventArgs> SecondDataKindReceived;
event EventHandler<ThirdDataKindEventArgs> ThirdDataKindReceived;
}
public interface IExchangeDataReceiver
{
void ConnectDataProvider(IExchangeDataProvider Provider);
}
then in your data providing form you would implement the interface:
public partial class MyProvidingForm : System.Windows.Forms.Form, IExchangeDataProvider
{
// normal form stuff
// ...
#region IExchangeDataProvider
public event EventHandler<FirstDataKindEventArgs> FirstDataKindReceived;
public event EventHandler<SecondDataKindEventArgs> SecondDataKindReceived;
public event EventHandler<ThirdDataKindEventArgs> ThirdDataKindReceived;
public void FireDataReceived(EventArgs Data)
{
FirstDataKindEventArgs FirstKindData = Data as FirstDataKindEventArgs;
if (FirstDataKindEventArgs != null)
if (FirstDataKindReceived != null)
FirstDataKindReceived(FirstKindData);
//... etc.
}
public void GotSomeDataOfTheFirstKind(int TheID, string SomeName, string Other)
{
FirstDataKindEventArgs eArgs =
new FirstDataKindEventArgs(TheId, SomeName, Other);
FireDataReceived(eArgs);
}
and in your receiver form(s) or other classes you wish to receive data:
public partial class FirstDataKindReceivingForm :
System.Windows.Forms.Form,
IExchangeDataReceiver
{
// usual form stuff
// ...
private IExchangeDataProvider myDataProvider;
public void ConnectDataProvider(IExchangeDataProvider Provider)
{
myDataProvider = Provider;
myDataProvider.FirstDataKindReceived +=
new EventHandler<FirstDataKindEventArgs>(
HandleFirstKindOfDataReceived
);
}
private void HandleFirstKindOfDataRecieved (
object sender, FirstDataKindEventArgs
)
{
// do whatever with data
}
}
#endregion
}
and so forth.

edit Form2 's constructor, so that you can pass some values from Form1 while running a new Form2 with .Show or .ShowDialog
Form2 myForm = new Form2(value1, value2, value3 ...);
And on Form2.cs you shall convert (or add a new one) public Form2() to public Form2(var value1, var value 2...)
If you have to send to Form2 continuously data, you may use a shared memory or shared data file.

The answer in the db forum by Mahrous seems to be the simplest http://www.daniweb.com/software-development/csharp/threads/126879/617436#post617436
Some of the other solutions are also valid and may be appropriate depending on the design of the applicaiton.

Appropriate design/design pattern for this problem?

I previously posted this, but I guess it was too verbose and irrelevant. My question is also like this. One poster in the second link said the answer (of why you can't do the code below) was a problem of design, specifically "bad use of inheritance". So I'd like to check this issue again with the experts at StackOverflow and see if this is really an issue of "bad inheritance" - but more importantly, how to fix the design.
Like the poster, I'm also confused about the Factory method and how I can apply it. It seems the factory method is for multiple concrete classes that have the exact same implementation as the abstract base class and do not add their own properties. But, as you will see below, my concrete classes build upon the abstract base class and add extra properties.
The Base Class We Build Upon:
public abstract class FlatScreenTV
{
public string Size { get; set; }
public string ScreenType { get; set; }
}
Extension Class Examples:
public class PhillipsFlatScreenTV : FlatScreenTV
{
// Specific to Phillips TVs. Controls the backlight intensity of the LCD screen.
public double BackLightIntensity { get; set; }
}
public class SamsungFlatScreenTV : FlatScreenTV
{
// Specific to Samsung TVs. Controls the time until the TV automatically turns off.
public int AutoShutdownTime { get; set; }
}
Let's say there are more extension classes for more brands of flat screen TVs. And then, let's say we stick them all into a generic List:
public static void Main()
{
List<FlatScreenTV> tvList = new List<FlatScreenTV>();
tvList.Add(new PhillipsFlatScreenTV());
tvList.Add(new SamsungFlatScreenTV());
tvList.Add(new SharpFlatScreenTV());
tvList.Add(new VizioFlatScreenTV());
FlatScreenTV tv = tvList[9]; // Randomly get one TV out of our huge list
}
The Problem:
I want to access the specific properties of whatever 'original' brand TV this variable belongs to. I know the brand because if I call tv.GetType(), it returns the correct 'original' type - not FlatScreenTV. But I need to be able to cast tv from FlatScreenTV back to its original type to be able to access the specific properties of each brand of flat-screen TVs.
Question #1: How can I dynamically cast that, properly - without makeshift hacks and huge if-else chains to brute-guess the 'original' type?
After browsing around similar design issues, most answers are: you can't. Some people say to look at the Factory Pattern, and others say to revise the design using interfaces, but I don't know how to use either to solve this problem.
Question #2: So, how should I design these classes so that I can access the original type's specific properties in the context above?
Question #3: Is this really bad inheritance?

Your design violates the "Liskov Substitution Principle". In other words, the code that deals with items from your list of FlatScreenTV shouldn't know or care what derived type is.
Say your code needs to create a custom remote control GUI. It might be enough to simply know the names and types of the properties of each TV to auto-generate the UI. In which case you could do something like this to expose the custom properties from the base class:
public abstract class FlatScreenTV
{
public FlatScreenTV()
{
CustomProperties = new Dictionary<string,object>();
}
public Dictionary<string,object> CustomProperties { get; private set; }
public string Size { get; set; }
public string ScreenType { get; set; }
}
public class PhillipsFlatScreenTV : FlatScreenTV
{
public PhillipsFlatScreenTV()
{
BackLightIntensity = 0;
}
// Specific to Phillips TVs. Controls the backlight intensity of the LCD screen.
public double BackLightIntensity
{
get { return (double)CustomProperties["BackLightIntensity"]; }
set { CustomProperties["BackLightIntensity"] = value; }
}
}
public class SamsungFlatScreenTV : FlatScreenTV
{
public SamsungFlatScreenTV()
{
AutoShutdownTime = 0;
}
// Specific to Samsung TVs. Controls the time until the TV automatically turns off.
public int AutoShutdownTime
{
get { return (int)CustomProperties["AutoShutdownTime"]; }
set { CustomProperties["AutoShutdownTime"] = value; }
}
}
If you really do need to be working directly with the derived types, then you should instead consider moving to a plugin based architecture. For example, you might have a factory method like this:
IRemoteControlGUI GetRemoteControlGUIFor(FlatScreenTV tv)
which would scan your plugins and find the one that knew how to build the UI for the particular type of FlatScreenTV you passed in. This means that for every new FlatScreenTV you add, you also need to create a plugin that knows how to make its remote control GUI.

Factory Pattern would be the best way to go

I can offer a partial answer:
Firstly read up on Liskov's Substitution Principle.
Secondly you are creating objects that inherit from FlatScreenTV, but apparently for no purpose as you want to refer to them by their SubType (SpecificTVType) and not their SuperType (FlatScreenTV) - This is bad use of Inheritance as it is NOT using inheritance lol.
If your code wants to access properties particular to a given type, then you really want this code encapsulated within that type. Otherwise everytime you add a new TV type, all the code that handles the TV list would need to be updated to reflect that.
So you should include a method on FlatScreenTV that does x, and override this in TV's as required.
So basically in your Main method above, instead of thinking I want to be dealing with TVTypeX, you should always refer to the basetype, and let inheritance and method overriding handle the specific behaviour for the subtype you are actually dealing with.
Code eg.
public abstract class FlatScreenTV
{
public virtual void SetOptimumDisplay()
{
//do nothing - base class has no implementation here
}
}
public class PhilipsWD20TV
{
public int BackLightIntensity {get;set;}
public override void SetOptimumDisplay()
{
//Do Something that uses BackLightIntensity
}
}

"the factory method is for multiple concrete classes that have the exact same implementation as the abstract base class [interface] and do not add their own properties."
No, speaking more practical, than theorical, the factory method can provide you with objects of concrete classes, in which the concrete classes, must have some common methods and interfaces, but, also some additional specific attributes.
Sometimes I use a method that creates the same class object every time I called, and I need to call it several times, and sometimes I use a method that create several different class objects, and that maybe be confusing, maybe another question.
And, your further comment about a switch sentence, with many options, when using the factory pattern, you usually provide an identifier for the concrete class / concrete object. This can be a string, an integer, an special type id, or an enumerated type.
You could use an integer / enum ID instead, and use a collection to lookup for the concrete class.

You can still leverage a factory. The point of a factory IMO is to put all the heavy lifting of constructing your various TVs in one place. To say categorically "a factory is for multiple concrete classes that have the exact same implementation as the abstract base class" is forgetting about polymorphism.
There is no law that says you cannot use a factory pattern because the sub classes declare unique properties and methods. But the more you can make use of polymorphism, the more a factory pattern makes sense. Also as a general guideline, IMHO, the more complexity that must go into constructing from the base the better off you are in the long run using a factory because you are "encapsulating change" - that is, constructing concrete classes is likely to change due to differing requirements and inherent construction complexity (a design analysis decision, to be sure) . And that change is in a single class - the factory.
Try this: Define everything in the abstract class and then for a given TV subclass either write concrete-specific code, and for those that don't apply write some standard "I don't do that" code.
Think about all the things your TVs do in generic terms: turn on, turn off, etc. Write a virtual method shell in the base class for all the generic things a TV does - this is a simple example of the template method pattern by the way. Then override these in the concrete classes as appropriate.
There are other things you can do in the base class to make it more fundgeable (that's a technical term meaning "reference subclasses as the base class, but do sub-classy things").
Define delegate methods (very powerful yet under-utilized)
use params[] for dynamic method parameter lists
Make Property delegates
Static methods
Declare Properties and methods "abstract" - forces sub-class implementation, vis-a-vis "virtual"
Hide inherited stuff in the sub class (generally using "new" keyword to communicate that it's on purpose)
If construction parameters are numerous or complex, create a class specifically designed to pass configuration to the factory's build method.
public class TVFactory {
public TV BuildTV(Brands thisKind) {
TV newSet;
switch (thisKind) {
case Brands.Samsung :
Samsung aSamsungTV = new Samsung();
aSamsungTV.BacklightIntensity = double.MinVal;
aSamsungTV.AutoShutdownTime = 45; //oops! I made a magic number. My bad
aSamsungTV.SetAutoShutDownTime = new delegate (newSet.SetASDT);
newSet = aSamsungTV;
break;
. . .
} // switch
}
//more build methods for setting specific parameters
public TV BuildTV (Brands thisKind, string Size) { ... }
// maybe you can pass in a set of properties to exactly control the construction.
// returning a concrete class reference violates the spirit of object oriented programming
public Sony BuildSonyTV (...) {}
public TV BuildTV (Brands thisKind, Dictionary buildParameters) { ... }
}
public class TV {
public string Size { get; set; }
public string ScreenType { get; set; }
public double BackLightIntensity { get; set; }
public int AutoShutdownTime { get; set; }
//define delegates to get/set properties
public delegate int GetAutoShutDownTime ();
public delegate void SetAutoShutDownTime (object obj);
public virtual TurnOn ();
public virtural TurnOff();
// this method implemented by more than one concrete class, so I use that
// as an excuse to declare it in my base.
public virtual SomeSonyPhillipsOnlything () { throw new NotImplementedException("I don't do SonyPhillips stuff"); }
}
public class Samsung : TV {
public Samsung() {
// set the properties, delegates, etc. in the factory
// that way if we ever get new properties we don't open umpteen TV concrete classes
// to add it. We're only altering the TVFactory.
// This demonstrates how a factory isolates code changes for object construction.
}
public override void TurnOn() { // do stuff }
public override void TurnOn() { // do stuff }
public void SamsungUniqueThing () { // do samsung unique stuff }
internal void SetASDT (int i) {
AutoShutDownTime = i;
}
}
// I like enumerations.
// No worries about string gotchas
// we get intellense in Visual Studio
// has a documentation-y quality
enum Brands {
Sony
,Samsung
,Phillips
}

We Keep Coding

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.

Where to create the class - c#

Related

Storing/Saving a Method and later re-calling it

Accessing a property in one ViewModel from another

How to separate controller from model when already mixed?

Passing continuous data between WinForms

Appropriate design/design pattern for this problem?

Categories

Resources