Is there any way, without using Reflection, of writing something along the lines of OSteele's Functional Invoke in C#?
This means using it as in:
Action<T> MethodName = StaticUtil.Invoke<T>("MethodName", optionalCurriedArgs);
And then calling:
MethodName(objWithMethodName);
I know using a Lambda would do the trick.
What I mean, is using something along the lines of AS3's:
public static function invoke( selectedMethod : String, ... arguments ) : Function {
var args : Array = arguments.slice();
return function ( object : * ) : * {
return object[ selectedMethod ].apply( object, args);
};
}
Thank you for reading.
No. There is no obvious way in C# without using Reflection to call a function on a particular class. At best you might try dynamic and let it be resolved at runtime. You can try using a library like FasterFlect to solve your need.
Alternatively, if you want a built in method you can do
typeof(MyObject).InvokeMember(methodName
,BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance
,null
,myInstance
,new object[]{parameter1,parameter2})
I would be lying to you if I said it wasn't reflection though. The CLR wasn't designed for you to invoke methods dynamically like javascript. This was a conscious decision to make a high performance method call. If you need to pass functions around use Delegates. If your method needs variable argument support you can use overloads, or params. If you need to call methods dynamically via strings:
use Dictionary<string,DelegateType> or if you know you have a few methods and need absolute speed use a List<Tuple<string,DelegateType>>. If you have many types that all respond to a message use Interfaces. If the classes aren't your own, or they are specialized for primitives try dynamic.
C# is a well designed language written for standard coding practices. There are lots of options. If you really need to they give you the tools to look up members and invoke them. Reflection is slow because the CLR was designed to be SAFE first. If you find yourself needing lots of reflection dynamic invocation you might want to reconsider your design choices. If you still can find no other way you can still use caching and Delegates to make that fast. dynamic is entirely done with clever caching and delegates, and dynamic in the best cases is nearly as fast as native code.
In theory, you can create a pattern like CallSite<T> in the DLR to fast cache a particular call site. I do something similar in a dynamic proxy I wrote to get around the fact that there is no way to create a function pointer to an open generic method. (e.g. I wanted to have a mydelegate.Invoke<T>(T arg) ).
Related
I would imagine this might use Reflection.Emit,
but a similar question on SO only answers how to create a class/method dynamically, not how to update an existing class.
In a similar vein, is it possible to delete methods / classes at runtime? If so, I suppose one could just delete the class, and add it back with its old methods plus the new one.
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I don't have an intended use for this, it is merely a matter of curiosity.
In regular C# / .NET, the answer is a simple "no". The most you can do is write a DynamicMethod which can behave like a method of that type (access to private fields etc), but it won't ever be on the API - you just end up with a delegate.
If you use dynamic, you can do pretty much anything you want. You can emulate that with ExpandoObject by attaching delegates in place of methods, but on a custom dynamic type you can do most anything - but this only impacts callers who use the dynamic API. For a basic ExpandoObject example:
dynamic obj = new ExpandoObject();
Func<int, int> func = x => 2*x;
obj.Foo = func;
int i = obj.Foo(123); // now you see it
obj.Foo = null; // now you don't
For properties and events (not methods), you can use the System.ComponentModel approach to change what appears at runtime, but that only impacts callers who get access via System.ComponentModel, which means mainly: UI data-binding. This is how DataTable represents columns as pseudo-properties (forgetting about "typed datasets" for the moment - it works without those).
For completeness, I should also mention extension methods. Those are more a compiler trick, not a runtime trick - but kinda allow you to add methods to an existing type - for small values of "add".
One final trick, commonly used by ORMs etc - is to dynamically subclass the type, and provide additional functionality in the subclass. For example, overriding properties to intercept them (lazy-loading, etc).
is it possible to delete methods / classes at runtime?
Suppose that it was possible. Calls to those methods would fail and produce undefined (but usually catastrophic) behaviour.
So I'm sure it is not possible.
So I started with no knowledge on reflection or dynamic typing, but I've learned a lot. However, there is one thing I cannot find: the "as" equivalent for dynamic typing.
What I'm trying to do is the equivalent of this (if it would compile):
foreach (Change c in changes)
{
(c.Undo as Action<c._Type, c._Type>).Invoke(
c.OldValue as c._Type, c.NewValue as c._Type);
}
From what I understand, I need to do something along the lines of
Type constructedClass = typeof(Action<,>).MakeGenericType(c._Type);
to construct the needed Action class, but is there a way to implement as for both the Action type and c._Type?
For further clarification, here is the pseudocode (and this is my first time trying to do this kind of thing, so please be nice):
foreach (Object o in objects)
{
(o.SettableMethod as Action<o.TypeOfParameters, o.TypeOfParameters>).Invoke(
o.Parameter1 as TypeOfParameters, o.Parameter2 as TypeOfParameters);
}
Thanks in advance.
The purpose of the generics on the Action (or in general) is to allow you to manage type safety at compile time. If you use reflection, you are doing extra work to not get that benefit. You might as well have the signature of your Undo Action take two objects of type object, and cast to appropriate types inside the action, if needed.
Even more generally, you would be better served by a different design. Why are you calling a method on Change that sends properties of Change back in? Could you not call Undo without any parameters, and leave Change responsible for knowing what the new and old values are?
I never seem to understand why we need delegates?
I know they are immutable reference types that hold reference of a method but why can't we just call the method directly, instead of calling it via a delegate?
Thanks
Simple answer: the code needing to perform the action doesn't know the method to call when it's written. You can only call the method directly if you know at compile-time which method to call, right? So if you want to abstract out the idea of "perform action X at the appropriate time" you need some representation of the action, so that the method calling the action doesn't need to know the exact implementation ahead of time.
For example:
Enumerable.Select in LINQ can't know the projection you want to use unless you tell it
The author of Button didn't know what you want the action to be when the user clicks on it
If a new Thread only ever did one thing, it would be pretty boring...
It may help you to think of delegates as being like single-method interfaces, but with a lot of language syntax to make them easy to use, and funky support for asynchronous execution and multicasting.
Of course you can call method directly on the object but consider following scenarios:
You want to call series of method by using single delegate without writing lot of method calls.
You want to implement event based system elegantly.
You want to call two methods same in signature but reside in different classes.
You want to pass method as a parameter.
You don't want to write lot of polymorphic code like in LINQ , you can provide lot of implementation to the Select method.
Because you may not have the method written yet, or you have designed your class in such a way that a user of it can decide what method (that user wrote) the user wants your class to execute.
They also make certain designs cleaner (for example, instead of a switch statement where you call different methods, you call the delegate passed in) and easier to understand and allow for extending your code without changing it (think OCP).
Delegates are also the basis of the eventing system - writing and registering event handlers without delegates would be much harder than it is with them.
See the different Action and Func delegates in Linq - it would hardly be as useful without them.
Having said that, no one forces you to use delegates.
Delegates supports Events
Delegates give your program a way to execute methods without having to know precisely what those methods are at compile time
Anything that can be done with delegates can be done without them, but delegates provide a much cleaner way of doing them. If one didn't have delegates, one would have to define an interface or abstract base class for every possible function signature containing a function Invoke(appropriate parameters), and define a class for each function which was to be callable by pseudo-delegates. That class would inherit the appropriate interface for the function's signature, would contain a reference to the class containing the function it was supposed to represent, and a method implementing Invoke(appropriate parameters) which would call the appropriate function in the class to which it holds a reference. If class Foo has two methods Foo1 and Foo2, both taking a single parameter, both of which can be called by pseudo-delegates, there would be two extra classes created, one for each method.
Without compiler support for this technique, the source code would have to be pretty heinous. If the compiler could auto-generate the proper nested classes, though, things could be pretty clean. Dispatch speed for pseudo-delegates would probably generally be slower than with conventional delegates, but if pseudo-delegates were an interface rather than an abstract base class, a class which only needs to make a pseudo-delegate for one method of a given signature could implement the appropriate pseudo-delegate interface itself; the class instance could then be passed to any code expecting a pseudo-delegate of that signature, avoiding any need to create an extra object. Further, while the number of classes one would need when using pseudo-delegates would be greater than when using "real" delegates, each pseudo-delegate would only need to hold a single object instance.
Think of C/C++ function pointers, and how you treat javascript event-handling functions as "data" and pass them around. In Delphi language also there is procedural type.
Behind the scenes, C# delegate and lambda expressions, and all those things are essentially the same idea: code as data. And this constitutes the very basis for functional programming.
You asked for an example of why you would pass a function as a parameter, I have a perfect one and thought it might help you understand, it is pretty academic but shows a use. Say you have a ListResults() method and getFromCache() method. Rather then have lots of checks if the cache is null etc. you can just pass any method to getCache and then only invoke it if the cache is empty inside the getFromCache method:
_cacher.GetFromCache(delegate { return ListResults(); }, "ListResults");
public IEnumerable<T> GetFromCache(MethodForCache item, string key, int minutesToCache = 5)
{
var cache = _cacheProvider.GetCachedItem(key);
//you could even have a UseCache bool here for central control
if (cache == null)
{
//you could put timings, logging etc. here instead of all over your code
cache = item.Invoke();
_cacheProvider.AddCachedItem(cache, key, minutesToCache);
}
return cache;
}
You can think of them as a construct similar with pointers to functions in C/C++. But they are more than that in C#. Details.
In PHP, I can try to call any method that might exist on an object like this:
$object->{$method}();
Where $object is our PHP Object and $method is the name of the method that we want to call. I can dynamically call any method this way.
Is there any C# equivalent to this? Or am I just "doing it wrong"? I have a plugin/module loaded in via Reflection and I'd like to call a method on it that is not defined in the interface.
Thanks!
Contrary to PHP, C# is a statically typed language meaning that types need to be known at compile time. Although such method has been introduced in C# 4.0. It's the dynamic keyword. It allows you to declare a variable of a dynamic type and call whatever method you like on it and the compiler won't protest. The resolution will be done at runtime:
dynamic obj = FetchInstanceFromSomewhere();
obj.Method();
Another more classic method is to use reflection but this could quickly turn into a nightmare.
As answered here, C#4 has the dynamic keyword, that does dynamic method invoking.
If you are on an older version, you can do this using Reflection, but I think it is the wrong way of doing it. The C# way of doing it would be to ensure the plugin loaded has an interface, which contains the methods you need to call.
Anyways, if you need to do it using reflection, here is an example:
Type type = instance.GetType();
MethodInfo m = type.GetMethod("MethodName");
m.Invoke(instance, new object[] {});
This is for a public method taking no arguments.
I have a plugin/module loaded in via
Reflection and I'd like to call a
method on it that is not defined in
the interface
Be carefull though... The cited sentence let me guess that you are doing something wrong. Using reflection 'to the rescue' is a common misconception of many c# users. If the interface in the module was designed without the method you wish to call then there was probably a good reason for this decision. If the module was designed properly you should not be able to call this method anyway - it is either private or internal.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
Delegate Usage : Business Applications
Where do I use delegates?
Hi,
I'm new to the concept of a delegate in .NET - I haven't really used them yet and think they are probably there for a good reason - when should I be using a delegate?
Examples are very welcome.
Delegates provide a way for you to pass behavior as a parameter.
Common examples are Events and asynchronous programming where something other than your object is responsible for calling into your object. You provide that event with a delegate, and now it's able to run the behavior associated with that delegate.
This can also be a useful technique when implementing a general algorithm. There've been times where I'm writing multiple methods that are very similar. Perhaps they loop over the same set of data, but they perform slightly different tasks. I can pass in a delegate to a single function to perform that task, then call the delegate from inside the loop over the data. This way I don't have to implement the loop over the data multiple times, I only have to write new code that does new things-- the common behavior is all captured in a common way.
In response to the comment:
The difference between calling the delegate from within the loop and calling the method from within the loop is that the delegate is a parameter to the function that contains the loop. This means that that function could do anything, not just what's defined within a particular method. That flexibility can and has been leveraged to supply generic algorithms in libraries completely independent of the specifics of what the algorithms are working with. Linq is a fine example of the generality that is allowed via the flexibility of delegates.
Delegates are useful when you need to tell another piece of code how to do something. Events are the simplest example - separating the event (something happened) from how to handle it. Other examples are some common iterative operations, such as a custom find:
List<Foo> foos = new List<Foo>();
foos.Find(delegate(Foo foo)
{
if(foo.CustomProperty.Contains("special value"))
{
return false;
}
return true;
});
The above is a totally arbitrary example but makes the point that you can separate the what (iterating and running a "find" criteria) from the how (how to determine whether something is found).
Also, I would recommend using generic delegate types instead of creating your own. Examples below:
EventHandler< TEventArgs>
Func< TResult>
Func< T1, T2, TResult>
Func etc...
Action< T1>
Action< T1, T2>
Action etc...
Events use delegates behind the scenes.
If you use events you've used delegates but just with a nicer syntax.
Basically one use for them is for callbacks or event based programming.
Delegates are used for event driven programming. Best practices are often about decoupling code (or 'loose' coupling). Using delegates you can subscribe methods to events, instead of having X call Y if something happens, and then Y call Z under a certain condition and so forth.
Events and Callbacks in the .NET guidelines explains it well.
In summary, you should prefer events in simple APIs because there is strong IDE support and most developers are comfortable with events. However, if you need the user to provide code that will be executed, you should consider using delegates or virtual members. Callbacks are less performant, but if you use delegates like Action and Func you allow lambdas.
Example case: a single resource is being used by multiple objects. The resource needs an asynchronous callback to these objects, but the nature of the resource demands that only one request be active at a given time, and that request is tied to a particular object. Due to the architecture, I don't want to pass the objects into the resource, so instead, I send the resource a delegate from each object and store these delegates along with object identifiers. When a request is made, I can look up the corresponding object identifier and call its specific delegate.
I originally implemented this with an event, but since the event couldn't be 'aimed' at a particular object, I was having issues. I'm not sure this is best practice, but it seems to work well for me.