We Keep Coding

C# Unity > Static instance member not causing constructor to be called

I have noticed a rather weird behaviour in my application I am creating;
I have a class I defined that has a static "instance" variable of the class type.
I would assume that (as per code attached) the constructor would be called.
Alas, it is not, unless I use the Void.get in a non-static field anywhere in my code.
public class Void : TilePrototype {
public static Tile get = new Tile((int)TileEntities.Void);
public static Void instance = new Void();
public Void() {
Debug.Log("created");
id = (int)TileEntities.Void;
isBlocking = true;
register();
}
public override RenderTile render(Tile tile){
return new RenderTile(0, new Color(0, 0, 0, 0));
}
So when I have something like :
public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get);
the Void class constructor never gets called. But, if I have:
Tile t = Void.get;
Anywhere in my code it will be called.
Why?
Thanks.

This is a really really subtle and nuanced area of C#; basically, you've stumbled into "beforefieldinit" and the difference between a static constructor and a type initializer. You can reasonably ask "when does a static constructor run?", and MSDN will tell you:
It is called automatically before the first instance is created or any static members are referenced.
Except... public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get); isn't a static constructor! It is a static field initializer. And that has different rules, which basically are "I'll run when I must, no later, possibly sooner". To illustrate with an example: the following will not (probably) run your code, because it doesn't have to - there isn't anything demanding the field:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
GC.KeepAlive(new Foo());
}
}
public class Foo
{
public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get);
}
However, if we make a tiny tweak:
public class Foo
{
public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get);
static Foo() { } // <=== added this
}
Now it has a static constructor, so it must obey the "before the first instance is created" part, which means it needs to also run the static field initializers, and so on and so on.
Without this, the static field initializer can be deferred until something touches the static fields. If any of your code actually touches empty, then it will run the static field initializer, and the instance will be created. Meaning: this would also have this effect:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
GC.KeepAlive(Foo.empty);
}
}
public class Foo
{
public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get);
}
This ability to defer execution of the static initialization until the static fields are actually touched is called "beforefieldinit", and it is enabled if a type has a static field initializer but no static constructor. If "beforefieldinit" isn't enabled, then the "before the first instance is created or any static members are referenced" logic applies.

Thanks to Marc Gravell's aswer I came up with this contraption (and admittedly I do like the new solution more than the old one, so thanks again!)
Modifications done to the Void class:
public class Void : TilePrototype {
public static Void instance = new Void();
public static Tile get {
get {
return new Tile(instance.id);
}
}
public Void() {
isBlocking = true;
}
public override RenderTile render(Tile tile){
return new RenderTile(0, new Color(0, 0, 0, 0));
}
}
So as You can see I made the "get" variable a property, so that it's evaluated later, when you actually need the tile, not on construction.
I've changed all "get"s this way.
Second change is in the TilePrototype:
public class TilePrototype {
public static Dictionary<int, TilePrototype> tilePrototypeDictionary = new Dictionary<int, TilePrototype>();
public static void registerPrototype(int id, TilePrototype tp){
tp.id = id;
tilePrototypeDictionary.Add(id, tp);
}
public static bool registered = false;
public static void registerAll(){
if( registered ) return;
registerPrototype(0, Void.instance);
registerPrototype(1, Air.instance);
registerPrototype(2, Floor.instance);
registerPrototype(3, Wall.instance);
(...)
Here I've added the registerPrototype and registerAll functions.
This gives me easy access to all the registered type ids (by say Wall.instance.id) as well as the other way around (from id to instance via the Dictionary)
I also have all registered things in one place, with the possibility of runtime adding more
Overall, much neater, and here I assure that all tiles are registered properly and assigned proper IDs.
Change of ID is simple and in one place and everywhere else, access to this ID is done via a short .instance.id
Thanks again for the help :)

Static Constructor and singleton

My friend told me that the following is one of the ways to create singleton design pattern in C#
public class class1{
public static class1 Obj { get; private set; }
static class1()
{
Obj = new class1();
}
}
He told me that the static constructor runs only one time in application, so only one instance of class1 will be created,
but I see that I have to add this if(Obj==null) to check the existence of object
public class class1{
public static class1 Obj { get; private set; }
static class1()
{
**if(Obj==null)**
Obj = new class1();
}
}
which code is correct?

Assuming that the only place where Obj is set is in the static constructor, the first code snippet is correct; the second code snippet is redundant.
Since static constructors run only once per class. If there is no other path to set Obj, its value will always be null at the beginning of the static constructor. Therefore, the check if(Obj==null) will always succeed, which makes it redundant.

The static constructor will only ever be called once, at some point prior to the static variables being allocated.
Which means that your friend is correct, you do not need the if statement - it is redundant.
This is because you cannot call a static constructor manually, it will only be called once, at the start of run-time.
Further reading : https://stackoverflow.com/a/4506997/617485

Multiple events get different instances of a field declared in singleton?

Edit: My bad, no strage events behavior. Error was somewhere else in code. Thx everybody for help. Please ignore this question
Please can someone explain to me what is happening here. I'm experiencing an unexpected event behaviour.
There is a singleton class:
internal class QueueListener
{
private static readonly object QueueChangeLock = new object();
private readonly List<IQueuedJobExecutioner> jobsQueue = new List<IQueuedJobExecutioner>();
// Here comes singleton private constructor, Instance property, all classic.
// Important line in constructor is this:
QueueManager.NewJobQueued += NewJobQueuedHandler;
private void NewJobQueuedHandler(object sender, NewJobQueuedEventArgs args)
{
lock (QueueChangeLock)
{
// This is the problematic place, note this!
jobsQueue.Add(args.QueuedJobExecutioner);
}
}
}
Now there is a second class:
public class QueueManager
{
public static event NewJobQueuedEventHandler NewJobQueued;
protected void RaiseNewJobQueuedEvent(IQueuedJobExecutioner queuedJobExecutioner)
{
if (NewJobQueued != null)
{
NewJobQueued(this, new NewJobQueuedEventArgs { QueuedJobExecutioner = queuedJobExecutioner });
}
}
}
Both classes reside on a server. Via WCF calls client executes sth like new QueueManager().MyMethod(), which calls RaiseNewJobQueuedEvent.
Everything works fine, however if two events are raised almost at the same time, I see in debugger the following at the problematic place (see comment in QueueListener):
First event comes. jobsQueue has no members.
jobsQueue.Add() is executed. jobsQueue has 1 member.
Second event comes. jobsQueue has no members! How? It's in a singleton and we just added a member!
jobsQueue.Add() is executed. jobsQueue has 1 member. Again. Member added in step 2 has been lost.
Not judging the design itself (it has some "historical" reasons), why exactly is this happening? Is this expected behavior and event somehow gets at some point a snapshot of jobsQueue or this is nonesense and I'm just missing some part of the puzzle?
Edit:
I'd say it is a singleton, and is implemented like this (these lines were omitted in original post):
class QueueListener
{
private static readonly object SyncRoot = new object();
private QueueListener()
{
//...
}
public static QueueListener Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
lock (SyncRoot)
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new QueueListener();
}
}
}
return instance;
}
}
}

Yuval is correct, your class is not a singleton. A singleton is created when you have a public static method to create an instance and a private constructor. The private constructor ensures that the only way to create an instance is through the public method.
Please see https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650316.aspx for more details.

Your QueueListener class is not actually a singleton. What that means for you is that you are creating multiple instances of it. To fix that you have to add the static keyword in the class declaration and declare a static constructor as well. Try changing your class to what is shown below:
internal static class QueueListener
{
private static readonly object QueueChangeLock = new object();
private static readonly List<IQueuedJobExecutioner> jobsQueue = new List<IQueuedJobExecutioner>();
// This is the singleton constructor that will be called
static QueueListener()
{
// Here comes singleton private constructor, Instance property, all classic.
// Important line in constructor is this:
QueueManager.NewJobQueued += NewJobQueuedHandler;
}
// Rest of class code...
}

What is the need of private constructor in C#?

What is the need of private constructor in C#?
I got it as a question for a C# test.

For example if you have a class that should only be created through factory methods. Or if you have overloads of the constructor, and some of them should only be used by the other constructors. Probably other reasons as well =)

If you know some design pattern, it's obvious: a class could create a new instance of itself internally, and not let others do it.
An example in Java (I don't know C# well enough, sorry) with a singleton-class:
class Meh
{
private Meh() { }
private static Meh theMeh = new Meh();
public static Meh getInstance() { return theMeh; }
}

Whenever you want to prevent direct instantiation of a class from outside of it, you'll use a private constructor. For example, prior to C# 2.0 which introduced static classes, you used a private constructor to accomplish roughly the same thing:
sealed class StaticClass {
private StaticClass() {
}
public static void DoSomething() {
}
}

When you want to prevent the users of your class from instantiating the class directly. Some common cases are:
Classes containing only static methods
Singletons

I can can recall few usages for it:
You could use it from a static factory method inside the same class
You could do some common work inside it and then call it from other contructure
You could use it to prevent the runtime from adding an empty contructure automatically
It could be used (although private) from some mocking and ORM tools (like nhibernate)

For example when you provide factory methods to control instantiation...
public class Test(){
private Test(){
}
void DoSomething(){
// instance method
}
public static Test CreateCoolTest(){
return new Test();
}
}

Private constructors are used to prevent the creation of instances of a class when there are no instance fields or methods, such as the Math class, or when a method is called to obtain an instance of a class. If all the methods in the class are static, consider making the entire class static. For more information see Static Classes and Static Class Members.
class NLog
{
// Private Constructor:
private NLog() { }
public static double e = System.Math.E; //2.71828...
}
The following is an example of a class using a private constructor.
public class Counter
{
private Counter() { }
public static int currentCount;
public static int IncrementCount()
{
return ++currentCount;
}
}
class TestCounter
{
static void Main()
{
// If you uncomment the following statement, it will generate
// an error because the constructor is inaccessible:
// Counter aCounter = new Counter(); // Error
Counter.currentCount = 100;
Counter.IncrementCount();
System.Console.WriteLine("New count: {0}", Counter.currentCount);
}
}

While this link is related to java, I think it should help you understand the reason why as the idea is pretty much the same.
Private constructors prevent a class from being explicitly instantiated by callers. There are some common cases where a private constructor can be useful:
classes containing only static utility methods
classes containing only constants
type safe enumerations
singletons

You can use it with inheritance in a case where the arguments to the constructor for the base class are of different types to those of the child classes constructor but you still need the functionality of the base class in the child class eg. protected methods.
Generally though this should be avoided wherever possible as this is a bad form of inheritance to be using.

I'm late to the game, but reading through all the other answers, I don't see this usage mentioned:
I use private constructors in scenarios where I have multiple (public) constructors, and they all have some code in common. With constructor chaining, the code becomes really neat and DRY.
Remember, the private readonly variables can only be set in constructors, so I can't use a regular method.
Example:
public class MyClass
{
private readonly int _a;
private readonly int _b;
private readonly string _x;
public MyClass(int a, int b, string x)
: this(x)
{
_a = a;
_b = b;
}
public MyClass()
: this("(not set)")
{
// Nothing set here...
}
private MyClass(string x)
{
_x = x;
}
}

Basically you use private constructors when you are following a singleton design pattern. In this case, you have a static method defined inside the class that internally calls the private constructor.
So to create the instance of the class for the first time, the user calls the classname.static_method_name. In this method, since the class's object doesn't yet exist, the static method internally calls the private constructor and returns the class's instance.
If the class's instance already exists, then the static method simply returns the instance to the calling method.

And of course you can use private constructor to prevent subclassing.

how to destroy a Static Class in C#

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);