I have a class like that:
class ContentManager : IDisposable
{
List<int> idlist = new List<int>();
public int Load(string path)
{
//Load file, give content, gets an id
//...
int id = LoadFile(myfilecontent);
idlist.Add(id);
return id;
}
public void Dispose()
{
//Delete the given content by id, stored in idlist
foreach(int id in idlist)
{
DeleteContent(id);
}
}
}
I want to make it static, because i need only one instance and can access the function from every other class without giving an instance.
I can make every variable in it static and the functions static.
But my problem is this IDisposable. I cannot have Interfaces in static classes. How can i do some action at the end? I mean i can remove that interface but leave the function in it and use my main class and when my main class gets disposed i call ContentManager.Dispose(). But when i forget that in my main...
Do you have a good solution for that? Make sure that Dispose is called every time when the program gets closed?
Edit: I load data in a graphic card and get the pointer back. When my application closes, i need to delete the contents from the graphics card. To be safe, everything is deleted, i use dispose.
I would leave your class as a non-static class and implement the singleton pattern. I added an example of how you would use it as singleton:
public class ContentManager : IDisposable
{
private List<int> idlist = new List<int>();
private static ContentManager instance;
private ContentManager () {}
public static ContentManager Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new ContentManager ();
}
return instance;
}
}
public int Load(string path)
{
int id = LoadFile(myfilecontent);
idlist.Add(id);
return id;
}
public void Dispose()
{
foreach(int id in idlist)
{
DeleteContent(id);
}
}
}
You should just not implement IDisposable. The thing is, that interfaces purpose is to ensure that clean up is done when an instance goes out of scope. There are no instances, and because of that IDisposable doesn't really apply.
The main thing that IDisposable gives you is that if you allocate your instance in a using statement the dispose call is added for you by the compiler. Again, you no longer have instances so it has no purpose. Instead you should just have your own dispose/clean up method and document it's purpose. If you think that is too error prone (relying on documentation is obviously less ideal than having the compiler/runtime enforce something) then you probably want to follow the singleton pattern as suggested in another answer.
Why do you need an IDisposable interface in this case? Static finalizers and destructors are not possible, because types are only unloaded when the AppDomain shuts down so anyway the fact that you could use IDisposable would not be useful.
If you really need to implement IDisposable and want to have just one instance of the class maybe it is a better solution to use a Singleton pattern?
Your class could then look like this:
class ContentManager : IDisposable
{
List<int> idlist = new List<int>();
static ContentManager instance=null;
ContentManager()
{
}
public static ContentManager Instance
{
get
{
if (instance==null)
{
instance = new ContentManager();
}
return instance;
}
}
public int Load(string path)
{
//Load file, give content, gets an id
//...
int id = LoadFile(myfilecontent);
idlist.Add(id);
return id;
}
public void Dispose()
{
//Delete the given content by id, stored in idlist
foreach (int id in idlist)
{
DeleteContent(id);
}
}
}
It is not thread-safe but could be enough in your scenario.
Try turning your class into a Singleton.
Related
At the moment I have the following class.
class BaseClass : IDisposable
{
private static List<BaseClass> instances = new List<BaseClass>();
protected BaseClass()
{
instances.Add(this);
}
~BaseClass()
{
Dispose();
}
public void Dispose()
{
instances.Remove(this);
}
}
So the lifetime of every class that inherit the BaseClass is infinitely until I close the program or I will call Dispose explicity.
Can I prevent this behaviour, so that lifetime is back to normal? (of course without removing the possibility to access the derived objects, otherwise my question make no sense)
I add the static List, to handle various actions to all classes that inherit BaseClass.
Edit
class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
}
//This case works
using (DerivedClass _dc = new DerivedClass())
{
//Do something with object
}
//This object will live forever, because it is internally in the static list
//That behaviour is not desired
DerivedClass dc = new DerivedClass();
How I can get the bahaviour that DerivedClass dc calls his destructor after the normal lifetime (as it would not be in the list)?
Background
I want to fill the Properties of the derived classes with values from a config file and do it in base class. But if the config file changed, I have to change all properties of alll derived classes. So if you know a way to get all objects that implements the base class and needs to be changed, let me know it.
Update
Solution 1: Based on my question
With help from Steve Mitcham (Go to post) I found out how I can make a weak reference with few lines of code:
class BaseClass : IDisposable
{
private static List<GCHandle> handles = new List<GCHandle>();
protected BaseClass()
{
this.handle = GCHandle.Alloc(this, GCHandleType.Weak);
handles.Add(this.handle);
}
~BaseClass()
{
Dispose();
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (handle.IsAllocated)
{
//Do Something more to Dispose the Object
//...
handle.Free();
handles.Remove(handle);
}
}
public void DoSomethingWithTheList()
{
foreach (GCHandle handle in handles)
{
BaseClass bc = (BaseClass)handle.Target;
//Do something
}
}
}
Now If I call GC.Collect(); it will collect my unused derived classes (so I think the garbage collector will collect my objects normally as well) because the object itself has no reference in a list.
Thank you!
Solution 2: Subsrciber / Broadcaster Pattern
With this pattern it is simple too. Additionally the derived class can get the info if the values are changed.
Thank you Alireza (Goto post) and Thangadurai.
class ConfigurationBroadcaster
{
string path = "";
public string Path
{
get { return path; }
set
{
bool changed = path != value;
path = value;
if(changed)
if (ChangedConfigurationValues != null)
{
Delegate[] invocationList = ChangedConfigurationValues.GetInvocationList();
foreach (var item in invocationList)
{
Type t = item.Target.GetType();
PropertyInfo[] pInfos = t.GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo pInfo in pInfos)
{
//new object() have to be the value from config file
//5 is used to set Width and Height from BroadcastSubscriber for this example
pInfo.SetValue(item.Target, 5/* new object()*/, null);
}
}
ChangedConfigurationValues(this, new EventArgs());
}
}
}
public event EventHandler ChangedConfigurationValues;
}
class BaseBroadcastSubscriber
{
ConfigurationBroadcaster broadcaster;
protected BaseBroadcastSubscriber(ConfigurationBroadcaster broadcaster)
{
this.broadcaster = broadcaster;
this.broadcaster.ChangedConfigurationValues += new EventHandler(broadcaster_ChangedConfigurationValues);
}
void broadcaster_ChangedConfigurationValues(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Configuration values changed");
}
}
class BroadcastSubscriber : BaseBroadcastSubscriber
{
int width,height;
public int Width
{
get { return width; }
set { width = value; }
}
public int Height
{
get { return height; }
set { height = value; }
}
public BroadcastSubscriber(ConfigurationBroadcaster broadcaster)
: base(broadcaster)
{
}
}
Without seeing more of your program it would be difficult to determine whether your approach could be improved. However, without fundamentally changing your design I would use WeakReferences to track your objects. The UpdateClasses method is to simulate your reconfigure action.
class BaseClass : IDisposable
{
private WeakReference<BaseClass> myReference;
private static List<WeakReference<BaseClass>> instances = new List<WeakReference>();
public static UpdateClasses(MyData stuff)
{
foreach(var ref in instances)
{
BaseClass target;
if (ref.TryGetTarget(out target))
{
// code to update target here
}
}
}
protected BaseClass()
{
myReference = new WeakReference<BaseClass>(this,true);
instances.Add(myReference);
}
~BaseClass()
{
Dispose();
}
public void Dispose()
{
instances.Remove(myReference);
}
}
The weak references will not keep your objects alive. When they get garbage collected they will remove their references from the instance list. Note, however, that this implementation will cause your objects to stay alive in the garbage collector longer than normal due to the requirement for the finalizer, and this may decrease the performance of the application over time.
Despite Steve Mitchman's answer, you could design a broadcaster class providing an event which gets fired whenever a change in config file is detected. Derived classes (objects) could subscribe to this event and unsubscribe upon being get GC collected or finalized. This approach follows open/closed principle very well.
When your BaseClass instance is off, that is both when you call the Dispose and when the instance itself is destroyed. These cases are normal.
We need to use an unmanaged library in our code that has static methods. I'd like to introduce the library operation as a dependency in my code. And apart from having static methods, the library has an initialization method and a settings method, both are global. So I can't just wrap this in an instance class, because if one instance changes a setting, all other instances will be affected, and if one instance gets initialized, all other instances will be reinitialized.
I thought about introducing it as a singleton class. This way it will be in an instance class, but there will only be one instance thus I won't have to worry about changing the settings or initialization. What do you think about this approach? I'm pretty new to the dependency injection pattern and I'm not sure if the singleton pattern is a good solution? What would your solution be to a similar case?
Edit: The initialization takes a parameter too, so I can't just lock the method calls and re-initialize and change settings every time it is called.
Edit 2: Here are the signatures of some methods:
public static void Initialize(int someParameter)
// Parameter can only be changed by re-initalization which
// will reset all the settings back to their default values.
public static float[] Method1(int someNumber, float[] someArray)
public static void ChangeSetting(string settingName, int settingValue)
If you only need to set the settings once at start up, then I would recommend making a non-static wrapper class which does all the initialization of the static class in its own static constructor. That way you can be assured that it will only happen once:
public class MyWrapper
{
public MyWrapper()
{
// Do any necessary instance initialization here
}
static MyWrapper()
{
UnManagedStaticClass.Initialize();
UnManagedStaticClass.Settings = ...;
}
public void Method1()
{
UnManagedStaticClass.Method1();
}
}
However, if you need to change the settings each time you call it, and you want to make your instances thread-safe, then I would recommend locking on a static object so that you don't accidentally overwrite the static settings while they're still in use by another thread:
public class MyWrapper
{
public MyWrapper()
{
// Do any necessary instance initialization here
}
static MyWrapper()
{
UnManagedStaticClass.Initialize();
}
static object lockRoot = new Object();
public void Method1()
{
lock (lockRoot)
{
UnManagedStaticClass.Settings = ...;
UnManagedStaticClass.Method1();
}
}
}
If you need to pass initialization parameters into your class's instance constructor, then you could do that too by having a static flag field:
public class MyWrapper
{
public MyWrapper(InitParameters p)
{
lock (lockRoot)
{
if (!initialized)
{
UnManagedStaticClass.Initialize(p);
initialized = true;
}
}
}
static bool initialized = false;
static object lockRoot = new Object();
public void Method1()
{
lock (lockRoot)
{
UnManagedStaticClass.Settings = ...;
UnManagedStaticClass.Method1();
}
}
}
If you also need to re-initialize each time, but you are concerned about performance because re-initializing is too slow, then the only other option (outside of the dreaded singleton) is to auto-detect if you need to re-initialize and only do it when necessary. At least then, the only time it will happen is when two threads are using two different instances at the same time. You could do it like this:
public class MyWrapper
{
public MyWrapper(InitParameters initParameters, Settings settings)
{
this.initParameters = initParameters;
this.settings = settings;
}
private InitParameters initParameters;
private Settings settings;
static MyWrapper currentOwnerInstance;
static object lockRoot = new Object();
private void InitializeIfNecessary()
{
if (currentOwnerInstance != this)
{
currentOwnerInstance = this;
UnManagedStaticClass.Initialize(initParameters);
UnManagedStaticClass.Settings = settings;
}
}
public void Method1()
{
lock (lockRoot)
{
InitializeIfNecessary();
UnManagedStaticClass.Method1();
}
}
}
I would use a stateless service class, and pass in state info for the static class with each method call. Without knowing any details of you class, I'll just show another example of this with a c# static class.
public static class LegacyCode
{
public static void Initialize(int p1, string p2)
{
//some static state
}
public static void ChangeSettings(bool p3, double p4)
{
//some static state
}
public static void DoSomething(string someOtherParam)
{
//execute based on some static state
}
}
public class LegacyCodeFacadeService
{
public void PerformLegacyCodeActivity(LegacyCodeState state, LegacyCodeParams legacyParams)
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
LegacyCode.Initialize(state.P1, state.P2);
LegacyCode.ChangeSettings(state.P3, state.P4);
LegacyCode.DoSomething(legacyParams.SomeOtherParam);
//do something to reset state, perhaps
}
}
}
You'll have to fill in the blanks a little bit, but hopefully you get the idea. The point is to set state on the static object for the minimum amount of time needed, and lock access to it that entire time, so no other callers can be affected by your global state change. You must create new instances of this class to use it, so it is fully injectable and testable (except the step of extracting an interface, which I skipped for brevity).
There are a lot of options in implementation here. For example, if you have to change LegacyCodeState a lot, but only to a small number of specific states, you could have overloads that do the work of managing those states.
EDIT
This is preferable to a singleton in a lot of ways, most importantly that you won't be able to accumulate and couple to global state: this turns global state in to non-global state if it is the only entry point to your static class. However, in case you do end up needing a singleton, you can make it easy to switch by encapsulating the constructor here.
public class LegacyCodeFacadeService
{
private LegacyCodeFacadeService() { }
public static LegacyCodeFacadeService GetInstance()
{
//now we can change lifestyle management strategies later, if needed
return new LegacyCodeFacadeService();
}
public void PerformLegacyCodeActivity(LegacyCodeState state, LegacyCodeParams legacyParams)
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
LegacyCode.Initialize(state.P1, state.P2);
LegacyCode.ChangeSettings(state.P3, state.P4);
LegacyCode.DoSomething(legacyParams.SomeOtherParam);
//do something to reset state, perhaps
}
}
}
I have a class with extensive static members, some of which keep references to managed and unmanaged objects.
For instance, the static constructor is called as soon as the Type is referenced, which causes my class to spin up a blockingQueue of Tasks. This happens when one of the static methods is called, for example.
I implemented IDisposable, which gives me methods to handle disposal on any instance objects I created. However, these methods are never called if the consumer doesn't create any instance objects from my class.
How and where do I put code to dispose of references maintained by the static portion of my class? I always thought that disposal of static-referenced resources happened when the last instance object was released; this is the first time I've ever created a class where no instances may ever be created.
The static variable of your class are not garbage collected until the app domain hosting your class is unloaded. The Dispose() method will not be called, because it is an instance method, and you said that you wouldn't create any instances of your class.
If you would like to make use of the Dispose() method, make your object a singleton, create one instance of it, and dispose of it explicitly when your application is about to exit.
public class MyClass : IDisposable {
public IList List1 {get; private set;}
public IDictionary<string,string> Dict1 {get; private set;}
public void Dispose() {
// Do something here
}
public static MyClass Instance {get; private set;}
static MyClass() {
Instance = new MyClass();
}
public static void DisposeInstance() {
if (Instance != null) {
Instance.Dispose();
Instance = null;
}
}
}
public class Logger : IDisposable
{
private string _logDirectory = null;
private static Logger _instance = null;
private Logger() : this(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["LogDirectory"])
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.ProcessExit += CurrentDomain_ProcessExit;
}
private Logger(string logDirectory)
{
}
public static Logger Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
_instance = new Logger();
return _instance;
}
}
private void CurrentDomain_ProcessExit(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Dispose();
}
public void Dispose()
{
// Dispose unmanaged resources
}
}
You should dispose this objects manually, there is no way to create a "finalizer" for static resources.
If you really want to have static members which keep references to unmanaged objects
just create a method for disposing the unmanaged objects and "force" consumer to use it on exit.
By "force" I mean document your class with a paragraph that states "when" and "why" to use this "dispose" method.
Do it either if you are the sole consumer (or your code...) or you plan to distribute your class.
Also try to use a somehow descriptive name (to that "dispose" method) such as "DisposeStatics", "AlwaysDispose", "DisposeAtEnd" etc.
How do I implement the singleton pattern in C#? I want to put my constants and some basic functions in it as I use those everywhere in my project. I want to have them 'Global' and not need to manually bind them every object I create.
If you are just storing some global values and have some methods that don't need state, you don't need singleton. Just make the class and its properties/methods static.
public static class GlobalSomething
{
public static int NumberOfSomething { get; set; }
public static string MangleString( string someValue )
{
}
}
Singleton is most useful when you have a normal class with state, but you only want one of them. The links that others have provided should be useful in exploring the Singleton pattern.
Singletons only make sense if both of these conditions are true:
The object must be global
There must only ever exist a single instance of the object
Note that #2 does not mean that you'd like the object to only have a single instance - if thats the case, simply instantiate it only once - it means that there must (as in, it's dangerous for this not to be true) only ever be a single instance.
If you want global, just make a global instance of some (non signleton) object (or make it static or whatever).
If you want only one instance, again, static is your friend. Also, simply instantiate only one object.
Thats my opinion anyway.
Singleton != Global. You seem to be looking for the keyword static.
You can really simplify a singleton implementation, this is what I use:
internal FooService() { }
static FooService() { }
private static readonly FooService _instance = new FooService();
public static FooService Instance
{
get { return _instance; }
}
Hmm, this all seems a bit complex.
Why do you need a dependency injection framework to get a singleton? Using an IOC container is fine for some enterprise app (as long as it's not overused, of course), but, ah, the fella just wants to know about implementing the pattern.
Why not always eagerly instantiate, then provide a method that returns the static, most of the code written above then goes away. Follow the old C2 adage - DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork...
I would recommend you read the article Exploring the Singleton Design Pattern available on MSDN. It details the features of the framework which make the pattern simple to implement.
As an aside, I'd check out the related reading on SO regarding Singletons.
Ignoring the issue of whether or not you should be using the Singleton pattern, which has been discussed elsewhere, I would implement a singleton like this:
/// <summary>
/// Thread-safe singleton implementation
/// </summary>
public sealed class MySingleton {
private static volatile MySingleton instance = null;
private static object syncRoot = new object();
/// <summary>
/// The instance of the singleton
/// safe for multithreading
/// </summary>
public static MySingleton Instance {
get {
// only create a new instance if one doesn't already exist.
if (instance == null) {
// use this lock to ensure that only one thread can access
// this block of code at once.
lock (syncRoot) {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new MySingleton();
}
}
}
// return instance where it was just created or already existed.
return instance;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// This constructor must be kept private
/// only access the singleton through the static Instance property
/// </summary>
private MySingleton() {
}
}
Static singleton is pretty much an anti pattern if you want a loosely coupled design. Avoid if possible, and unless this is a very simple system I would recommend having a look at one of the many dependency injection frameworks available, such as http://ninject.org/ or http://code.google.com/p/autofac/.
To register / consume a type configured as a singleton in autofac you would do something like the following:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder()
builder.Register(typeof(Dependency)).SingletonScoped()
builder.Register(c => new RequiresDependency(c.Resolve<Dependency>()))
var container = builder.Build();
var configured = container.Resolve<RequiresDependency>();
The accepted answer is a terrible solution by the way, at least check the chaps who actually implemented the pattern.
public class Globals
{
private string setting1;
private string setting2;
#region Singleton Pattern Implementation
private class SingletonCreator
{
internal static readonly Globals uniqueInstance = new Globals();
static SingletonCreator()
{
}
}
/// <summary>Private Constructor for Singleton Pattern Implementaion</summary>
/// <remarks>can be used for initializing member variables</remarks>
private Globals()
{
}
/// <summary>Returns a reference to the unique instance of Globals class</summary>
/// <remarks>used for getting a reference of Globals class</remarks>
public static Globals GetInstance
{
get { return SingletonCreator.uniqueInstance; }
}
#endregion
public string Setting1
{
get { return this.setting1; }
set { this.setting1 = value; }
}
public string Setting2
{
get { return this.setting2; }
set { this.setting2 = value; }
}
public static int Constant1
{
get { reutrn 100; }
}
public static int Constat2
{
get { return 200; }
}
public static DateTime SqlMinDate
{
get { return new DateTime(1900, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0); }
}
}
I like this pattern, although it doesn't prevent someone from creating a non-singleton instance. It can sometimes can be better to educate the developers in your team on using the right methodology vs. going to heroic lengths to prevent some knucklehead from using your code the wrong way...
public class GenericSingleton<T> where T : new()
{
private static T ms_StaticInstance = new T();
public T Build()
{
return ms_StaticInstance;
}
}
...
GenericSingleton<SimpleType> builder1 = new GenericSingleton<SimpleType>();
SimpleType simple = builder1.Build();
This will give you a single instance (instantiated the right way) and will effectively be lazy, because the static constructor doesn't get called until Build() is called.
What you are describing is merely static functions and constants, not a singleton. The singleton design pattern (which is very rarely needed) describes a class that is instantiated, but only once, automatically, when first used.
It combines lazy initialization with a check to prevent multiple instantiation. It's only really useful for classes that wrap some concept that is physically singular, such as a wrapper around a hardware device.
Static constants and functions are just that: code that doesn't need an instance at all.
Ask yourself this: "Will this class break if there is more than one instance of it?" If the answer is no, you don't need a singleton.
hmmm... Few constants with related functions... would that not better be achieved through enums ? I know you can create a custom enum in Java with methods and all, the same should be attainable in C#, if not directly supported then can be done with simple class singleton with private constructor.
If your constants are semantically related you should considered enums (or equivalent concept) you will gain all advantages of the const static variables + you will be able to use to your advantage the type checking of the compiler.
My 2 cent
Personally I would go for a dependency injection framework, like Unity, all of them are able to configure singleton items in the container and would improve coupling by moving from a class dependency to interface dependency.
You can make a simple manual static singleton implementation for your common (non-static) class by adding a static property Instance (name can vary) into it with initialization like this:
public class MyClass
{
private static MyClass _instance;
public static MyClass Instance => _instance ?? (_instance = new MyClass());
// add here whatever constructor and other logic you like or need.
}
Then it can be resolved anywhere from this namespace like this:
var myClass = MyClass.Instance; // without any new keyword
myClass.SomeNonStaticMethod();
// or:
MyClass.Instance.SomeNonStaticMethod();
// or:
MyClass.Instance.SomeNonStaticProperty = "new value";
By hiding public constructor, adding a private static field to hold this only instance, and adding a static factory method (with lazy initializer) to return that single instance
public class MySingleton
{
private static MySingleton sngltn;
private static object locker;
private MySingleton() {} // Hides parameterless ctor, inhibits use of new()
public static MySingleton GetMySingleton()
{
lock(locker)
return sngltn?? new MySingleton();
}
}
I have written a class for my project using Singleton pattern. It is very easy to use. Hope it will work for you. Please find the code following.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Web;
namespace TEClaim.Models
{
public class LogedinUserDetails
{
public string UserID { get; set; }
public string UserRole { get; set; }
public string UserSupervisor { get; set; }
public LogedinUserDetails()
{
}
public static LogedinUserDetails Singleton()
{
LogedinUserDetails oSingleton;
if (null == System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["LogedinUserDetails"])
{
oSingleton = new LogedinUserDetails();
System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["LogedinUserDetails"] = oSingleton;
}
else
{
oSingleton = (LogedinUserDetails)System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["LogedinUserDetails"];
}
//Return the single instance of this class that was stored in the session
return oSingleton;
}
}
}
Now you can set variable value for the above code in your application like this..
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Login(FormCollection collection)
{
LogedinUserDetails User_Details = LogedinUserDetails.Singleton();
User_Details.UserID = "12";
User_Details.UserRole = "SuperAdmin";
User_Details.UserSupervisor = "815978";
return RedirectToAction("Dashboard", "Home");
}
And you can retrieve those value like this..
public ActionResult Dashboard()
{
LogedinUserDetails User_Details = LogedinUserDetails.Singleton();
ViewData["UserID"] = User_Details.UserID;
ViewData["UserRole"] = User_Details.UserRole;
ViewData["UserSupervisor"] = User_Details.UserSupervisor;
return View();
}
In c# it could be (Thread safe as well as lazy initialization):
public sealed class MySingleton
{
static volatile Lazy<MySingleton> _instance = new Lazy<MySingleton>(() => new MySingleton(), true);
public static MySingleton Instance => _instance.Value;
private MySingleton() { }
}
I am using .net 1.1. I have a session class in which I have stored many static variables that hold some data to be used by many classes.
I want to find a simple way of destroying this class instead of resetting every variable one by one. For example if there is a static class MyStatic, I would have liked to destroy/remove this class from the memory by writing MyStatic = null, which is not currently possible,
Additional question.
The idea of singleton is good, but I have the following questions:
If singleton is implemented, the 'single' object will still remain in the memory. In singleton, we are only checking if an instance is already existing. how can i make sure that this instance variable also gets destroyed.
I have a main class which initializes the variable in the static class. Even if I plan to implement a Rest() method, I need to call it from a method, for eg, the destructor in the main class. But this destructor gets called only when GC collects this main class object in the memory, which means the Reset() gets called very late
thanks
pradeep
Don't use a static class to store your variables. Use an instance (and make it a singleton if you only want one instance at any given time.) You can then implement IDisposible, and just call Dispose() when you want to destroy it.
For more information check out this site: http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Singleton.aspx
EDIT
The object is still subject to garbage collection, so unless you are using lots of unmanaged resources, you should be fine. You can implement IDisposible to clean up any resources that need to be cleaned up as well.
Instead of a static class, have a static instance of a class:
class Foo
{
public int Something;
public static Foo Instance = new Foo();
public void Reset()
{
Instance = new Foo();
}
}
void test
{
int i = Foo.Instance.Something;
}
You can also delegate to an instance of the class:
class Foo
{
public int Something
{
get { return instance.something; }
}
private int something;
private static Foo instance = new Foo();
public void Reset()
{
instance = new Foo();
}
}
void test
{
int i = Foo.Something;
}
There's no way to destroy a static unless it resides in a separate AppDomain in which case you can get rid of it by unloading the AppDomain. However it is usually better to avoid statics.
EDIT: Additional question
When the singleton is no longer referenced it will be collected just as everything else. In other words, if you want it collected you must make sure that there are no references to it. It goes without saying that if you store a static reference to your singleton, you will have the same problem as before.
Use a Singleton like ktrauberman said, and have an initialization method or a reset method. You only have to write the code once and call the method.
You destroy objects, not classes. There's nothing wrong with static classes--C# provides them for a reason. Singletons are just extra overhead, unless you actually need an object, e.g. when you have to pass the object as a parameter.
Static classes contain only static variables. These variables tend to last for the lifetime of the app, in which case you don't have to worry about disposing referenced objects, unless you have a mild case of OCD. That just leaves the case where your static class allocates and releases resources throughout its lifetime. Dispose of these objects in due course as you usually would (e.g., "using...").
The best way in your condition is to have an Reset() method built-in as well, which can reset the values of the class.
class myclass
{
private static myclass singleobj = null;
private myclass(){}
public static myclass CreateInstance()
{
if(singleobj == null)
singleobj = new myclass();
return singleobj
}
}
Building on Ahemd Said's answer: (and props to him!)
class Singleton
{
private static Singleton instance = null;
private Singleton(){} // private constructor: stops others from using
public static Singleton Instance
{
get { return instance ?? (instance = new Singleton()); }
set {
if (null != value)
{ throw new InvalidValueException(); }
else
{ instance = null; }
}
}
}
void SampleUsage()
{
Singleton myObj = Singleton.Instance;
// use myObj for your work...
myObj.Instance = null; // The set-operator makes it ready for GC
}
(untested... but mostly right, I think)
You could also add in usage of the IDispose interface for more cleanup.
You can create a method in the static class which resets the values of all properties.
Consider you have a static class
public static class ClassA
{
public static int id=0;
public static string name="";
public static void ResetValues()
{
// Here you want to reset to the old initialized value
id=0;
name="";
}
}
Now you can use any of the below approaches from any other class to reset value of a static class
Approach 1 - Calling directly
ClassA.ResetValues();
Approach 2 - Invoking method dynamically from a known namespace and known class
Type t1 = Type.GetType("Namespace1.ClassA");
MethodInfo methodInfo1 = t1.GetMethod("ResetValues");
if (methodInfo1 != null)
{
object result = null;
result = methodInfo1.Invoke(null, null);
}
Approach 3 - Invoking method dynamically from an assembly/set of assemblies
foreach (var Ass in AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies())
{
// Use the above "If" condition if you want to filter from only one Dll
if (Ass.ManifestModule.FullyQualifiedName.EndsWith("YourDll.dll"))
{
List<Type> lstClasses = Ass.GetTypes().Where(t => t.IsClass && t.IsSealed && t.IsAbstract).ToList();
foreach (Type type in lstClasses)
{
MethodInfo methodInfo = type.GetMethod("ResetValues");
if (methodInfo != null)
{
object result = null;
result = methodInfo.Invoke(null, null);
}
}
break;
}
}
Inject the objects into the static class at startup from a non static class that implements IDisposable, then when your non static class is destroyed so are the objects the static class uses.
Make sure to implement something like "Disable()" so the static class is made aware it's objects have just been set to null.
Eg I have a logger class as follows:
public static class Logger
{
private static Action<string, Exception, bool> _logError;
public static void InitLogger(Action<string, Exception, bool> logError)
{
if(logError != null) _logError = logError;
}
public static void LogError(string msg, Exception e = null, bool sendEmailReport = false)
{
_logError?.Invoke(msg, e, sendEmailReport);
}
In my constructor of my Form I call the following to setup the logger.
Logger.InitLogger(LogError);
Then from any class in my project I can do the following:
Logger.LogError("error",new Exception("error), true);