We Keep Coding

Load property lazy loading

I have a property which getter should load its value only the first time. The second time it returns the loaded value without loading it again:
private Object _MemberValue;
public Object MemberValue
{
get
{
if(_MemberValue == null)
{
_MemberValue = LoadMember();
}
return _MemberValue;
}
}
In VB.NET there is the Static keyword. With it you don't have to declare a class wide member.
Public Property MemberValue as Object
Get
Static value as Object = Nothing
If (value is Nothing) Then
value = LoadMember()
End If
Return value
End Get
End Property
In C# there isn't such a keyword.
Are there better C# implementations of this problem or other patterns?

Are there better C# implementations of this problem or other patterns?
Probably not. You can use Lazy<T> as an replacement if you like, but basically it is the same as your first example. Using Static in VB.NET has some serious drawbacks, so I wouldn't use it either way.
If you prefer Lazy<T>, this is what I would use:
private Lazy<object> _MemberLazy = new Lazy<object>(LoadMember);
public object MemberValue
{
get
{
return _MemberLazy.Value;
}
}

Your initial approach seems appropriate, I have never had reason to do something different. That said if your goal here is to avoid a class level field that could potentially be written to outside the getter, perhaps something like this would work. There are a number of other ReadOnly, WriteOnce, SetOnce implementations that would also work similarly.
ReadOnlyField.cs
public class ReadOnlyField<T>
{
private bool _frozen;
private T _value;
public T Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
if (_frozen)
throw new InvalidOperationException();
_value = value;
}
}
public void Freeze()
{
_frozen = true;
}
}
YourObject.cs
public class YourObject
{
private readonly ReadOnlyField<object> _someMember;
public object MemberValue
{
get
{
if(_someMember.Value == null)
{
_someMember.Value = LoadMember();
_someMember.Freeze();
}
return _someMember.Value;
}
}
public YourObject()
{
_someMember = new ReadOnlyField<object>();
}
}
It's not perfect. Unlike your VB.Net example; code outside of the getter could write to the field first, but at least you're protected from it being overwritten after Freeze is called.

How to get Getter backing field from PropertyInfo?

I have a class as follows:
class Foo : PropertyChangedBase {
private int _property;
public int Property {
get { return _property; }
set { OnAssignPropertyChanged("Property", () => _property, value); }
}
PropertyChangedBase implements INotifyPropertyChanged with the following methods:
protected void OnAssignmentPropertyChanged<T>(string propertyName, Expression<Func<T>> fieldExpression, T value)
{
var get = fieldExpression.Compile();
if (get().Equals(value))
{
return;
}
// invoke set property method
SetProperty(fieldExpression, value);
PropertyChanged?.Invoke(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
private void SetProperty<T>(Expression<Func<T>> fieldExpression, T value)
{
if (fieldExpression == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(fieldExpression));
}
var memberExpression = fieldExpression.Body as MemberExpression;
if (memberExpression == null)
{
throw new ArgumentException("fieldExpression");
}
var field = memberExpression.Member as FieldInfo;
if (field == null)
{
throw new ArgumentException("fieldExpression");
}
field.SetValue(this, value);
}
I would prefer to call:
OnAssignPropertyChanged(() => Property, value);
The only way this will work is if I can get the backing field for the property getter and then pass that to SetProperty. Is it possible to get the FieldInfo or target member from the property get method?

As a general answer, yes you can do, at least under controlled conditions. But the only case you should do this is when you are absoluty sure what you are doing and only with limited support, because there will be cases you can not handle.
Have a look at the answer here: Find all property references using reflection. The target is a bit different but the approach is similar for finding field references. Since the answer there already includes the necessary code i will just outline the way to go:
All metadata items in .Net are referenced by tokens. To get tokens used inside a method you have to parse the MethodBody (by skipping all the things you wont inspect) and then resolve the found tokens in their module. Remember to use the BitConverter when reading the tokens from the stream to resolve them.
But now to the down side; the only time you can really safely use this to find the backing fields of a properties getter, is when you find a simple get method, with a well defined opcode sequence like Ldfld, Ret or something like that. Maybe you can define a few patterns that the C# compiler will emit for simple and autoimplemented properties. If you find anything different there is no other way as to resign and throw an exception, because the getter could contain any code.
Like always with reflection, only use whitelist approaches, check for the conditions you expect and throw exeptions in any other case or you will run into a NullReferenceException sooner or later.
If this is worth the trouble is for you to decide, but in general you could do this since .Net 2.0 and do not even need a fancy external lib.

No, in general case you can't. Just compare two classes:
public class Test {
private int _propA;
private int _propB;
public int PropA {get { return _propA; }}
public int PropB {get { return _propB; }}
}
public class TestSwapped {
private int _propA;
private int _propB;
// please, notice swapped backing fields
public int PropA {get { return _propB; }}
public int PropB {get { return _propA; }}
}
you'll get identical PropertyInfo[] and FieldInfo[] arrays but different backing fields

In pursuing this for a different question, here is an extension method for the simple cases - an autogenerated backing field, or a get that just returns a backing field:
public static class MethodInfoExt {
const int IL_ldarg0 = 0x02;
const int IL_ldfld = 0x7B;
public static FieldInfo FieldInfoFromGetAccessor(this MethodInfo getAccessorMI) {
var body = getAccessorMI.GetMethodBody().GetILAsByteArray();
if (body[0] == IL_ldarg0 && body[1] == IL_ldfld) {
var fieldToken = BitConverter.ToInt32(body, 2);
return getAccessorMI.DeclaringType.Module.ResolveField(fieldToken);
}
else
return default;
}
}

You can not. Property can have no backing fields or sets of backing fields.
Even set property can have no backing fields at all.
public Int32 Prop
{
set { Debug.WriteLine(value.ToString()); }
get { return 1; }
}
What are you expecting to get in FieldInfo?

Property is just a syntax sugar for a pair of set/get methods, or mutators. Being a method allows them to contain as much code as needed, including being just empty and, of course, there is no requirement to have a backing field from compiler perspective.

Easy creation of properties that support indexing in C#

In C# I find indexed properties extremely useful. For example:
var myObj = new MyClass();
myObj[42] = "hello";
Console.WriteLine(myObj[42]);
However as far as I know there is no syntactic sugar to support fields that themselves support indexing (please correct me if I am wrong). For example:
var myObj = new MyClass();
myObj.field[42] = "hello";
Console.WriteLine(myObj.field[42]);
The reason I need this is that I am already using the index property on my class, but I have GetNumX(), GetX(), and SetX() functions as follows:
public int NumTargetSlots {
get { return _Maker.NumRefs; }
}
public ReferenceTarget GetTarget(int n) {
return ReferenceTarget.Create(_Maker.GetReference(n));
}
public void SetTarget(int n, ReferenceTarget rt) {
_Maker.ReplaceReference(n, rt._Target, true);
}
As you can probably see exposing these as one indexable field property would make more sense. I could write a custom class to achieve this every time I want the syntactic sugar but all of the boilerplate code just seem unnecessary.
So I wrote a custom class to encapsulate the boilerplate and to make it easy to create properties that can be indexed . This way I can add a new property as follows:
public IndexedProperty<ReferenceTarget> TargetArray {
get {
return new IndexedProperty<int, ReferenceTarget>(
(int n) => GetTarget(n),
(int n, ReferenceTarget rt) => SetTarget(n, rt));
}
}
The code for this new IndexedProperty class looks like:
public class IndexedProperty<IndexT, ValueT>
{
Action<IndexT, ValueT> setAction;
Func<IndexT, ValueT> getFunc;
public IndexedProperty(Func<IndexT, ValueT> getFunc, Action<IndexT, ValueT> setAction)
{
this.getFunc = getFunc;
this.setAction = setAction;
}
public ValueT this[IndexT i]
{
get {
return getFunc(i);
}
set {
setAction(i, value);
}
}
}
So my question is: is there a better way to do all of this?
Well to be specific, is there a more idiomatic way in C# to create an indexable field property, and if not how could I improve my IndexedProperty class?
EDIT: After further research, Jon Skeet calls this a "named indexer".

EDIT FOR 2022: This continues to get votes, but it probably isn't something I would use today primarily because it does push garbage collection in a way that would not be ideal at scale, if the property was being hit a lot. I remember this being a complicated topic, and I do not want to go deep on researching it right now, but I wonder if indexers could solve this problem today. See: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/indexers/
I found your idea useful, so I extended it. This may not technically be a proper answer since I'm not sure it squarely answers your question, but I thought it might be useful to people who came here looking for property indexers.
First, I needed to be able to support get-only and set-only properties, so I made a slight variation of your code for these scenarios:
Get and Set (very minor changes):
public class IndexedProperty<TIndex, TValue>
{
readonly Action<TIndex, TValue> SetAction;
readonly Func<TIndex, TValue> GetFunc;
public IndexedProperty(Func<TIndex, TValue> getFunc, Action<TIndex, TValue> setAction)
{
this.GetFunc = getFunc;
this.SetAction = setAction;
}
public TValue this[TIndex i]
{
get
{
return GetFunc(i);
}
set
{
SetAction(i, value);
}
}
}
Get Only:
public class ReadOnlyIndexedProperty<TIndex, TValue>
{
readonly Func<TIndex, TValue> GetFunc;
public ReadOnlyIndexedProperty(Func<TIndex, TValue> getFunc)
{
this.GetFunc = getFunc;
}
public TValue this[TIndex i]
{
get
{
return GetFunc(i);
}
}
}
Set Only:
public class WriteOnlyIndexedProperty<TIndex, TValue>
{
readonly Action<TIndex, TValue> SetAction;
public WriteOnlyIndexedProperty(Action<TIndex, TValue> setAction)
{
this.SetAction = setAction;
}
public TValue this[TIndex i]
{
set
{
SetAction(i, value);
}
}
}
Example
Here's a simple usage example. I inherit from Collection and create a named indexer, as Jon Skeet called it. This example is intended to be simple, not practical:
public class ExampleCollection<T> : Collection<T>
{
public IndexedProperty<int, T> ExampleProperty
{
get
{
return new IndexedProperty<int, T>(GetIndex, SetIndex);
}
}
private T GetIndex(int index)
{
return this[index];
}
private void SetIndex(int index, T value)
{
this[index] = value;
}
}
ExampleCollection in the Wild
This hastily constructed unit test shows how it looks when you ExampleCollection in a project:
[TestClass]
public class IndexPropertyTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void IndexPropertyTest()
{
var MyExample = new ExampleCollection<string>();
MyExample.Add("a");
MyExample.Add("b");
Assert.IsTrue(MyExample.ExampleProperty[0] == "a");
Assert.IsTrue(MyExample.ExampleProperty[1] == "b");
MyExample.ExampleProperty[0] = "c";
Assert.IsTrue(MyExample.ExampleProperty[0] == "c");
}
}
Finally, if you want to use the get-only and set-only versions, that looks like this:
public ReadOnlyIndexedProperty<int, T> ExampleProperty
{
get
{
return new ReadOnlyIndexedProperty<int, T>(GetIndex);
}
}
Or:
public WriteOnlyIndexedProperty<int, T> ExampleProperty
{
get
{
return new WriteOnlyIndexedProperty<int, T>(SetIndex);
}
}
In both cases, the result works the way you would expect a get-only/set-only property to behave.

Well, the simpliest is to have the property return an object which implements IList.
Remember that just because it implements IList doesn't mean it's a collection itself, just that it implements certain methods.

I think the design you've posted is the way to go, with the one difference that I would define an interface:
public interface IIndexed<IndexT, ValueT>
{
ValueT this[IndexT i] { get; set; }
}
And for common cases, I would use the class you put in the original question (which would implement this interface).
It would be nice if the base class library provided a suitable interface for us, but it doesn't. Returning an IList here would be a perversion.

This doesn't answer your question, but it's interesting to note that CIL supports making properties like you've described - some languages (For example, F#) will allow you to define them in such a way too.
The this[] indexer in C# is just a specific instance of one of these which is renamed to Item when you build your app. The C# compiler only knows how to read this one, so if you write a "named indexer" called Target in an F# library, and try to use it in a C#, the only way you could access the property is via the ... get_Target(int) and void set_Target(int, ...) methods. Sucks.

Why not have your class inherit IList then you can just use the index and add your own properties to it. Although you will still have the Add and Remove functions its not dishonest not to use them. Plus you may find it useful to have them furthur down the road.
For more information about Lists and Arrays check out:
Which is better to use array or List<>?
EDIT:
MSDN has an article on index properties you may want to take a look at. Doesn't seem to complicated just tedious.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288464(VS.71).aspx
There is another option where you can create an alternative Add method but depending on the type of object your add method may not always be called. Explained here:
How do I override List<T>'s Add method in C#?
EDIT 2: Similar to the first post
Why don't you have a hidden list object in your class and then just create your own methods for obtaining the data. That way Add and Remove aren't seen and the list is already indexed.
Also what do you mean by "named indexer" are you looking for the equivalent of the row["My_Column_Name"]. Theres an MSDN article I found that may be useful as it seems to show the basic way to implement that property.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/146h6tk5.aspx
class Test
{
private List<T> index;
public T this[string name]{ get; set; }
public T this[int i]
{
get
{
return index[i];
}
set
{
index[i] = value;
}
}
}

After some research, I came up with a slightly different solution that better fitted my needs. The example is a little concocted, but it does suit what I need it to adapt it to.
Usage:
MyClass MC = new MyClass();
int x = MC.IntProperty[5];
And the code to make it work:
public class MyClass
{
public readonly IntIndexing IntProperty;
public MyClass()
{
IntProperty = new IntIndexing(this);
}
private int GetInt(int index)
{
switch (index)
{
case 1:
return 56;
case 2:
return 47;
case 3:
return 88;
case 4:
return 12;
case 5:
return 32;
default:
return -1;
}
}
public class IntIndexing
{
private MyClass MC;
internal IntIndexing(MyClass mc)
{
MC = mc;
}
public int this[int index]
{
get { return MC.GetInt(index); }
}
}
}

C# Extension methods on "members"

I have some extension methods which could be used like this:
MyType myObject;
string displayName = myObject.GetDisplayName(x => x.Property);
The problem here is that it needs an instance, even if the extension method only needs the type MyType. So if there is no instance, it needs to be called like this:
string displayName = BlahBlahUtility.GetDisplayName((MyTpe x) => x.Property);
Which is not so nice anymore.
Is there a way to write better syntax for such cases?
What I actually want to do is this (pseudo language):
string displayName = MyType.Property.GetDisplayName()
Which of course does not work with C#.
But what about something like this:
string displayName = ((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
This is also not possible (after a lambda, a dot is not accepted).
Any ideas?
Edit:
My "favorite syntax" MyType.Property.GetDisplayName() seems to be misleading. I don't talk about static properties here. I know that this syntax won't be possible. I just tried to show in pseudo language, what information is necessary. This would be ideal, every additional stuff is just syntactical overhead. Any working syntax that is close to this would be great.
I don't want to write a certain extension method. I want an easy, readable and compile time safe syntax, using any language feature.

Have a look at the Express and Reflect classes in the Lokad Shared Libraries. Think they may help out with what you are trying to do. Read more here:
Strongly Typed Reflection in Lokad Shared
How to Find Out Variable or Parameter Name in C#?

From your comment: "I want an easy and compile time safe syntax to get information about members".
This is a very frequently requested feature and has been discussed in the C# team's meetings for about a decade, but has never been prioritised high enough to be included.
This blog post explains why:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/05/21/in-foof-we-trust-a-dialogue.aspx
So for now, you're just going to be fighting against a missing feature. Maybe you could post more information about your broader problem and see if people can suggest different approaches.
Update
Without more info about your problem this is just guesswork. But if you have a property that represents a value but also carries additional "meta" information, you could always represent that as a new type and use an "injection" step to set everything up.
Here's a suggested abstract interface to such a "meta property":
public interface IMetaProperty<TValue>
{
TValue Value { get; set; }
string DisplayName { get; }
event Action<TValue, TValue> ValueChanged;
}
The value of the property is just another sub-property, with its type defined by the user.
I've put in the display name, and also as a bonus you've got an event that fires when the value changes (so you get "observability" for free).
To have properties like this in a class, you'd declare it like this:
public class SomeClass
{
public IMetaProperty<string> FirstName { get; private set; }
public IMetaProperty<string> LastName { get; private set; }
public IMetaProperty<int> Age { get; private set; }
public SomeClass() { MetaProperty.Inject(this); }
}
Note how the setters on the properties are private. This stops anyone from accidentally setting the property itself instead of setting the Value sub-property.
So this means the class has to set up those properties so they aren't just null. It does this by calling a magic Inject method, which can work on any class:
public static class MetaProperty
{
// Make it convenient for us to fill in the meta information
private interface IMetaPropertyInit
{
string DisplayName { get; set; }
}
// Implementation of a meta-property
private class MetaPropertyImpl<TValue> : IMetaProperty<TValue>,
IMetaPropertyInit
{
private TValue _value;
public TValue Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
var old = _value;
_value = value;
ValueChanged(old, _value);
}
}
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
public event Action<TValue, TValue> ValueChanged = delegate { };
}
public static void Inject(object target)
{
// for each meta property...
foreach (var property in target.GetType().GetProperties()
.Where(p => p.PropertyType.IsGenericType &&
p.PropertyType.GetGenericTypeDefinition()
== typeof(IMetaProperty<>)))
{
// construct an implementation with the correct type
var impl = (IMetaPropertyInit)
typeof (MetaPropertyImpl<>).MakeGenericType(
property.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments()
).GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes).Invoke(null);
// initialize any meta info (could examine attributes...)
impl.DisplayName = property.Name;
// set the value
property.SetValue(target, impl, null);
}
}
}
It just uses reflection to find all the IMetaProperty slots hiding in the object, and fills them in with an implementation.
So now a user of SomeClass could say:
var sc = new SomeClass
{
FirstName = { Value = "Homer" },
LastName = { Value = "Simpson" },
Age = { Value = 38 },
};
Console.WriteLine(sc.FirstName.DisplayName + " = " + sc.FirstName.Value);
sc.Age.ValueChanged += (from, to) =>
Console.WriteLine("Age changed from " + from + " to " + to);
sc.Age.Value = 39;
// sc.Age = null; compiler would stop this
If you're already using an IOC container you may be able to achieve some of this without going directly to reflection.

It looks like you're trying to create a static extension method?
DateTime yesterday = DateTime.Yesterday(); // Static extension.
Instead of
DateTime yesterday = DateTime.Now.Yesterday(); // Extension on DateTime instance.
If this is what you're trying to pull off, I do not believe it is possible in the current version of C#.

It sounds like you are integrating layers a little too tightly. Normally in this type of situation I would let the presentation layer decide the implementation of GetDisplayName() instead of making it an extension of the property itself. You could create an interface called MyTypeDisplayer or whatever you fancy, and let there be multiple implementations of it not limiting you to a single display implementation.

The issue here is that one cannot get a reference to non-static methods via instance MyType.[Member]. These can only be seen through a reference to an instance of the type. You also cannot build an extension method on-top of a type declaration, only on an instance of a type - that is the extension method itself has to be defined using an instance of a type (this T x).
One can however define the expression like this to get a reference to static members:
((MyType x) => MyType.Property)
One could do something similar to string displayName = ((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
The first issue is guaranteeing that the compiler treats your (x=> x.Property) as an Expression rather than an action/func etc...
To do this one might need to do this:
string displayName = ((Expression<Func<PropertyType>>)((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
The extension method would then have to be defined like this:
public static string GetDisplayName<T>(this Expression<Func<T>> expression)
You might also have to define an extension method on top of Expression<Action>> and Expression<Action<T>> if your members are also methods.
You can do a dot after an Expression - this is where the Compile method would reside.
Appended:
I think the static call to the extension method in cases that one doesn't have an instance of the type one needs to do "reflection" on to determine a Members name would be the cleanest syntax still - this way you could still use the extension method when using an instance of a type and fall back to the static call definition => MyExtensionClass.GetDisplayName(TypeOfX x => TypeOfX.StaticMember OR x.Property/Member) when one doesn't have an instance

If you interface your properties, you could make the extension on the interface instead:
namespace Linq1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyType o = new MyType();
o.Property.GetDisplayName();
}
}
public class MyType
{
public IDisplayableProperty Property { get; set; }
}
public interface IDisplayableProperty
{
string GetText();
}
public class MyProperty1 : IDisplayableProperty
{
public string GetText() { return "MyProperty2"; }
}
public class MyProperty2 : IDisplayableProperty
{
public string GetText() { return "MyProperty2"; }
}
public static class Extensions
{
public static string GetDisplayName(this IDisplayableProperty o)
{
return o.GetText();
}
}
}

c# marking class property as dirty

The following is a simple example of an enum which defines the state of an object and a class which shows the implementation of this enum.
public enum StatusEnum
{
Clean = 0,
Dirty = 1,
New = 2,
Deleted = 3,
Purged = 4
}
public class Example_Class
{
private StatusEnum _Status = StatusEnum.New;
private long _ID;
private string _Name;
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
set { _Status = value; }
}
public long ID
{
get { return _ID; }
set { _ID = value; }
}
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
}
when populating the class object with data from the database, we set the enum value to "clean". with the goal of keeping most of the logic out of the presentation layer, how can we set the enum value to "dirty" when a property is changed.
i was thinking something along the lines of;
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set
{
if (value != _Name)
{
_Name = value;
_Status = StatusEnum.Dirty;
}
}
}
in the setter of each property of the class.
does this sound like a good idea, does anyone have any better ideas on how the dirty flag can be assigned without doing so in the presentation layer.

When you really do want a dirty flag at the class level (or, for that matter, notifications) - you can use tricks like below to minimise the clutter in your properties (here showing both IsDirty and PropertyChanged, just for fun).
Obviously it is a trivial matter to use the enum approach (the only reason I didn't was to keep the example simple):
class SomeType : INotifyPropertyChanged {
private int foo;
public int Foo {
get { return foo; }
set { SetField(ref foo, value, "Foo"); }
}
private string bar;
public string Bar {
get { return bar; }
set { SetField(ref bar, value, "Bar"); }
}
public bool IsDirty { get; private set; }
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected void SetField<T>(ref T field, T value, string propertyName) {
if (!EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals(field, value)) {
field = value;
IsDirty = true;
OnPropertyChanged(propertyName);
}
}
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName) {
var handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null) {
handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
}
You might also choose to push some of that into an abstract base class, but that is a separate discussion

One option is to change it on write; another is to keep a copy of all the original values and compute the dirtiness when anyone asks for it. That has the added benefit that you can tell exactly which fields have changed (and in what way) which means you can issue minimal update statements and make merge conflict resolution slightly easier.
You also get to put all the dirtiness-checking in one place, so it doesn't pollute the rest of your code.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's an option worth considering.

If you want to implement it in this way, and you want to reduce the amount of code, you might consider applying Aspect Oriented Programming.
You can for instance use a compile-time weaver like PostSharp , and create an 'aspect' that can be applied to properties. This aspect then makes sure that your dirty flag is set when appropriate.
The aspect can look like this:
[Serializable]
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class ChangeTrackingAttribute : OnMethodInvocationAspect
{
public override void OnInvocation( MethodInvocationEventArgs e )
{
if( e.Delegate.Method.ReturnParameter.ParameterType == typeof(void) )
{
// we're in the setter
IChangeTrackable target = e.Delegate.Target as IChangeTrackable;
// Implement some logic to retrieve the current value of
// the property
if( currentValue != e.GetArgumentArray()[0] )
{
target.Status = Status.Dirty;
}
base.OnInvocation (e);
}
}
}
Offcourse, this means that the classes for which you want to implement ChangeTracking, should implement the IChangeTrackable interface (custom interface), which has at least the 'Status' property.
You can also create a custom attribute ChangeTrackingProperty, and make sure that the aspect that has been created above, is only applied to properties that are decorated with this ChangeTrackingProperty attribute.
For instance:
public class Customer : IChangeTrackable
{
public DirtyState Status
{
get; set;
}
[ChangeTrackingProperty]
public string Name
{ get; set; }
}
This is a little bit how I see it.
You can even make sure that PostSharp checks at compile-time whether classes that have properties that are decorated with the ChangeTrackingProperty attribute, implement the IChangeTrackable interface.

This method is based on a set of different concepts provided in this thread. I thought i'd put it out there for anyone that is looking for a way to do this cleanly and efficiently, as i was myself.
The key of this hybrid concept is that:
You don't want to duplicate the data to avoid bloating and resource hogging;
You want to know when the object's properties have changed from a given original/clean state;
You want to have the IsDirty flag be both accurate, and require little processing time/power to return the value; and
You want to be able to tell the object when to consider itself clean again. This is especially useful when building/working within the UI.
Given those requirements, this is what i came up with, and it seems to be working perfectly for me, and has become very useful when working against UIs and capturing user changes accurately. I have also posted an "How to use" below to show you how I use this in the UI.
The Object
public class MySmartObject
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Number { get; set; }
private int clean_hashcode { get; set; }
public bool IsDirty { get { return !(this.clean_hashcode == this.GetHashCode()); } }
public MySmartObject()
{
this.Name = "";
this.Number = -1;
MakeMeClean();
}
public MySmartObject(string name, int number)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Number = number;
MakeMeClean();
}
public void MakeMeClean()
{
this.clean_hashcode = this.Name.GetHashCode() ^ this.Number.GetHashCode();
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.Name.GetHashCode() ^ this.Number.GetHashCode();
}
}
It's simple enough and addresses all of our requirements:
The data is NOT duplicated for the dirty check...
This takes into account all property changes scenarios (see scenarios below)...
When you call the IsDirty property, a very simple and small Equals operation is performed and it is fully customizable via the GetHashCode override...
By calling the MakeMeClean method, you now have a clean object again!
Of course you can adapt this to encompass a bunch of different states... it's really up to you. This example only shows how to have a proper IsDirty flag operation.
Scenarios
Let's go over some scenarios for this and see what comes back:
Scenario 1
New object is created using empty constructor,
Property Name changes from "" to "James",
call to IsDirty returns True! Accurate.
Scenario 2
New object is created using paramters of "John" and 12345,
Property Name changes from "John" to "James",
Property Name changes back from "James" to "John",
Call to IsDirty returns False. Accurate, and we didn't have to duplicate the data to do it either!
How to use, a WinForms UI example
This is only an example, you can use this in many different ways from a UI.
Let's say you have a two forms ([A] and [B]).
The first([A]) is your main form, and the second([B]) is a form that allows the user to change the values within the MySmartObject.
Both the [A] and the [B] form have the following property declared:
public MySmartObject UserKey { get; set; }
When the user clicks a button on the [A] form, an instance of the [B] form is created, its property is set and it is displayed as a dialog.
After form [B] returns, the [A] form updates its property based on the [B] form's IsDirty check. Like this:
private void btn_Expand_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
SmartForm form = new SmartForm();
form.UserKey = this.UserKey;
if(form.ShowDialog() == DialogResult.OK && form.UserKey.IsDirty)
{
this.UserKey = form.UserKey;
//now that we have saved the "new" version, mark it as clean!
this.UserKey.MakeMeClean();
}
}
Also, in [B], when it is closing, you can check and prompt the user if they are closing the form with unsaved changes in it, like so:
private void BForm_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
//If the user is closing the form via another means than the OK button, or the Cancel button (e.g.: Top-Right-X, Alt+F4, etc).
if (this.DialogResult != DialogResult.OK && this.DialogResult != DialogResult.Ignore)
{
//check if dirty first...
if (this.UserKey.IsDirty)
{
if (MessageBox.Show("You have unsaved changes. Close and lose changes?", "Unsaved Changes", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo, MessageBoxIcon.Warning) == DialogResult.No)
e.Cancel = true;
}
}
}
As you can see from the examples above, this can be a very useful thing to have since it really streamlines the UI.
Caveats
Every time you implement this, you have to customize it to the object you're using. E.g.: there's no "easy" generic way of doing this without using reflection... and if you use reflection, you lose efficiency, especially in large and complex objects.
Hopefully this helps someone.

Take a look at PostSharp (http://www.postsharp.org/).
You can easily create a Attribute which marks it as dirty you can add the attrubute to each property that needs it and it keeps all your code in one place.
Roughly speaking Create an interface which has your status in make the class implement it.
Create an attribute which can be applied on properties and cast to your interface in order to set the value when something changes one of the marked properties.

Your approach is basically how I would do it. I would just
remove the setter for the Status property:
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
// set { _Status = value; }
}
and instead add a function
public SetStatusClean()
{
_Status = StatusEnum.Clean;
}
As well as SetStatusDeleted() and SetStatusPurged(), because I find it better indicates the intention.
Edit
Having read the answer by Jon Skeet, I need to reconsider my approach ;-) For simple objects I would stick with my way, but if it gets more complex, his proposal would lead to much better organised code.

If your Example_Class is lightweight, consider storing the original state and then comparing the current state to the original in order to determine the changes. If not your approach is the best because stroing the original state consumes a lot of system resources in this case.

Apart from the advice of 'consider making your type immutable', here's something I wrote up (and got Jon and Marc to teach me something along the way)
public class Example_Class
{ // snip
// all properties are public get and private set
private Dictionary<string, Delegate> m_PropertySetterMap;
public Example_Class()
{
m_PropertySetterMap = new Dictionary<string, Delegate>();
InitializeSettableProperties();
}
public Example_Class(long id, string name):this()
{ this.ID = id; this.Name = name; }
private void InitializeSettableProperties()
{
AddToPropertyMap<long>("ID", value => { this.ID = value; });
AddToPropertyMap<string>("Name", value => { this.Name = value; });
}
// jump thru a hoop because it won't let me cast an anonymous method to an Action<T>/Delegate
private void AddToPropertyMap<T>(string sPropertyName, Action<T> setterAction)
{ m_PropertySetterMap.Add(sPropertyName, setterAction); }
public void SetProperty<T>(string propertyName, T value)
{
(m_PropertySetterMap[propertyName] as Action<T>).Invoke(value);
this.Status = StatusEnum.Dirty;
}
}
You get the idea.. possible improvements: Use constants for PropertyNames & check if property has really changed.
One drawback here is that
obj.SetProperty("ID", 700); // will blow up int instead of long
obj.SetProperty<long>("ID", 700); // be explicit or use 700L

Here is how i do it.
In cases where i do not need to test for specific fields being dirty,
I have an abstract class:
public abstract class SmartWrap : ISmartWrap
{
private int orig_hashcode { get; set; }
private bool _isInterimDirty;
public bool IsDirty
{
get { return !(this.orig_hashcode == this.GetClassHashCode()); }
set
{
if (value)
this.orig_hashcode = this.orig_hashcode ^ 108.GetHashCode();
else
MakeClean();
}
}
public void MakeClean()
{
this.orig_hashcode = GetClassHashCode();
this._isInterimDirty = false;
}
// must be overridden to return combined hashcodes of fields testing for
// example Field1.GetHashCode() ^ Field2.GetHashCode()
protected abstract int GetClassHashCode();
public bool IsInterimDirty
{
get { return _isInterimDirty; }
}
public void SetIterimDirtyState()
{
_isInterimDirty = this.IsDirty;
}
public void MakeCleanIfInterimClean()
{
if (!IsInterimDirty)
MakeClean();
}
/// <summary>
/// Must be overridden with whatever valid tests are needed to make sure required field values are present.
/// </summary>
public abstract bool IsValid { get; }
}
}
As well as an interface
public interface ISmartWrap
{
bool IsDirty { get; set; }
void MakeClean();
bool IsInterimDirty { get; }
void SetIterimDirtyState();
void MakeCleanIfInterimClean();
}
This allows me to do partial saves, and preserve the IsDirty state if there is other details to save. Not perfect, but covers a lot of ground.
Example of usage with interim IsDirty State (Error wrapping and validation removed for clarity):
area.SetIterimDirtyState();
if (!UpdateClaimAndStatus(area))
return false;
area.MakeCleanIfInterimClean();
return true;
This is good for most scenarios, however for some classes i want to test for each field with a backing field of original data, and either return a list of changes or at least an enum of fields changed.
With an enum of fields changed i can then push that up through a message chain for selective update of fields in remote caches.

You could also think about boxing your variables, which comes at a performance cost, but also has its merits. It is pretty consise and you cannot accidentally change a value without setting your dirty status.
public class Variable<T>
{
private T _value;
private readonly Action<T> _onValueChangedCallback;
public Variable(Action<T> onValueChangedCallback, T value = default)
{
_value = value;
_onValueChangedCallback = onValueChangedCallback;
}
public void SetValue(T value)
{
if (!EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals(_value, value))
{
_value = value;
_onValueChangedCallback?.Invoke(value);
}
}
public T GetValue()
{
return _value;
}
public static implicit operator T(Variable<T> variable)
{
return variable.GetValue();
}
}
and then hook in a callback that marks your class as dirty.
public class Example_Class
{
private StatusEnum _Status = StatusEnum.New;
private Variable<long> _ID;
private Variable<string> _Name;
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
set { _Status = value; }
}
public long ID => _ID;
public string Name => _Name;
public Example_Class()
{
_ID = new Variable<long>(l => Status = StatusEnum.Dirty);
_Name = new Variable<string>(s => Status = StatusEnum.Dirty);
}
}

Another method is to override the GetHashCode() method to somthing like this:
public override int GetHashCode() // or call it GetChangeHash or somthing if you dont want to override the GetHashCode function...
{
var sb = new System.Text.StringBuilder();
sb.Append(_dateOfBirth);
sb.Append(_marital);
sb.Append(_gender);
sb.Append(_notes);
sb.Append(_firstName);
sb.Append(_lastName);
return sb.ToString.GetHashCode();
}
Once loaded from the database, get the hash code of the object. Then just before you save check if the current hash code is equal to the previous hash code. if they are the same, don't save.
Edit:
As people have pointed out this causes the hash code to change - as i use Guids to identify my objects, i don't mind if the hashcode changes.
Edit2:
Since people are adverse to changing the hash code, instead of overriding the GetHashCode method, just call the method something else. The point is detecting a change not whether i use guids or hashcodes for object identification.