I've been experimenting with the decorator pattern to extend functionality of code you do not want to touch for example and I see how to implement it however I am now unsure why you don't just inherit from the original class and extend that way.
I have read that the decorator pattern allows you to add functionality at runtime whereas inheritance means its there at compile time.
I don't understand this.
Could someone explain this, provide examples and explain when its better to use decorator vs inheritance.
Thanks
Suppose you create a View class that displays your items in a certain way.
Now you decide you also want a version of it which is scrollable, so you create a ScrollableView which inherits the View.
Later you decide you also want a version with a border so you now need to make a BorderedView and a BorderdScrollableView.
If on the other hand you could make a decorator for each added styling. You would have the following classes:
View
ScrollableDecorator
BorderedDecorator
When you want a bordered scroll view you do:
new BorderedDecorator(new ScrollableDecorator(new View())).
So you can configure any combination of this with just the 3 classes. And you can add or remove them at runtime (suppose you click a button that says add border, you now wrap your view with a BorderDecorator ... while whith inheritance you need to implemented this view class if you haven't already, or you need to create a new view instance and copy all relevant data from the first view to the second view which is not as easy to do as just adding or removing wrappers).
Imagine a game like Civilization, where each square on the map can have a variety of resources attached to it (like, say, various ores, or wood, or oil, etc.).
If you used straight inheritance, you'd need to create a class for each kind of square. It'd be unwieldy to have
public class OilSquare {}
public class OilAndGoldSquare {}
public class GoldAndSilverSquare {}
// etc.
The Decorator Pattern allows one to mix and match without needing to create a rigid hierarchy. So, you'd have instead:
public class Square {}
public class GoldDec {}
public class SilverDec {}
public class OilDec {}
// ...
var crazyMix = new GoldDec(new SilverDec(new OilDec(new Square())));
Put another way, Decorators allow for the creation of pipeline behavior, with each step in the pipeline being swappable with another step.
As others have already said Decorators are good for adding "options" to things... The benefits come in the way you can chain methods etc. through the decorators.
Imagine I buy a car with options for leather interior, metallic paint and awesome spoiler...
There are 8 different combinations of the three options but with decorators you only need three extra classes.
The interesting thing though is the way the decorator pattern works. As a brief example:
public class MetallicPaint : Car
{
private Car car;
public MetallicPaint(Car wrappedCar)
{
car = wrappedCar;
}
public decimal Cost()
{
return car.Cost() + 500;
}
public string Description()
{
return car.Description() + ", Metallic Paint";
}
public string Speed()
{
return car.Speed();
}
[... {pass through other methods and properties to the car object}]
}
This isn't a complete example but highlights how the decorator can interact with the object it is decorating. And of course because it implements car it can be used just like a car in every other way (and passes through anything the decorator doesn't effect to the inner car object).
Of course if you had multiple of these decorators with a car nested inside each would in turn add their cost, their part of the description and maybe the spoiler would alter the speed whereas the others didn't...
In essence it allows you to modify an object in a much more modular and less fundamental way than inheritance would. Decorators should always be used as if they were the base object (in this case Car) so they should never expose any new methods or properties, just slightly change the effect of existing ones.
Decorator pattern is better than inheritance if you have many features to be added and you also require to have combination of these features. Suppose your base class is A, and you want to extend(decorate) this base class with feature f1,f2,f3,f4 and some combination of them like (f1,f2) and (f1,f3) and .. ; so you would require to create 4!=4*3*2*1=24 class in your hierarchy (4 for each feature and the rest for their combination). While, Using decorative pattern, you would only need to create 4 classes!
for #Seyed Morteza Mousavi in #Razvi post:
You are right, we can add two properties Scrollable and Bordered to View class, then check if the property is set to true so run the desired behaviour. But this requires that we already be aware of the number of the feature we require(which is not the case in decorator pattern). otherwise, with every new feature (say f1) we want to add to our class, we need to alter our main class, or inherit the main class (you would say) and add the property. Taking latter approach, you would further need to alter the part of the code which handles feature combination (this is not good, since it is not obeying the rule of thumb of "loose coupling!")
hope this helps.
Related
Maybe I'm missing something here, and I admit my OO skills are not what I'd like them to be, but looking at this example of the decorator pattern, I notice that the UML declares that a decorator is both is-a component and has-a component. This puzzles me a little bit in that it seems redundant for it to be both, and, in fact, when I test the "real world" code, found here, and modify the decorator class to look like this:
abstract class Decorator /*: LibraryItem*/ {
protected LibraryItem libraryItem;
// Constructor
public Decorator(LibraryItem libraryItem) {
this.libraryItem = libraryItem;
}
public /* override */ void Display() {
libraryItem.Display();
}
}
...
class Borrowable : Decorator {
protected List<string> borrowers = new List<string>();
// Constructor
public Borrowable(LibraryItem libraryItem) : base(libraryItem) { }
public void BorrowItem(string name) {
borrowers.Add(name);
libraryItem.NumCopies--;
}
public void ReturnItem(string name) {
borrowers.Remove(name);
libraryItem.NumCopies++;
}
public new /*override*/ void Display() {
base.Display();
foreach (string borrower in borrowers) {
Console.WriteLine(" borrower: " + borrower);
}
}
}
What I've done here is simply removed the is-a relationship by commenting out the ": LibraryItem" but kept the has-a relationship by keeping "protected LibraryItem libraryItem;". I also commented out the override on the Display methods replacing one with the new keyword. As best I can tell, this works just as well as the original code.
Am I missing something here? Is it really necessary for the decorator to inherit from component? The UML diagram and implemented code would certainly suggest so, but I'm curious if there's something I'm not seeing or addressing properly.
Thoughts?
The decorator pattern is suppose to
Attach additional responsibilities to an object dynamically.
Decorators provide a flexible alternative to subclassing for extending
functionality. This pattern is designed so that multiple decorators can be stacked on top of each
other, each time adding a new functionality to the overridden
method(s).
In effect you can if your decorator classes inherits from the same type that it is decorating one could chain more and more decorators thus adding more and more responsibility while still being able to use it where the original base class was called.
You would for example not be able to pass Borrowable where you required a LibraryItem in your example. Your example is just a composition example and not a decorator example.
Look at C# Stream and its decorators.
Lets for example say I had a Document class. Now I could have a DocumentWithSpellCheckingDecorator and DocumentWithGrammarCheckingDecorator. I could use both decorators or just one or the other, but still I would have a Document and can be used as a Document since I just decorated it with more functionality. Maybe this is not the perfect example, but hope it helps.
Btw the dofactor website is easy to understand but sometimes does not quite get the message across. I have found this on other patterns on the site as well.
The decorated component IS-A component, for example a BorderedImage is an image decorated with a border, and it can be used in any place that it's Image superclass would be used.
This means BorderedImage can be passed to any code that uses an Image, for example a method that calls saveImage(Image image).
Breaking the inheritance relation between BorderedImage and Image would prevent the use of the decorated image in code that takes an Image.
This would mean that a BorderedImage would no longer simply be an Image. Keeping the inheritance relation is therefore essential to keep the meaning intended by the the Decorator pattern.
I need to implement a basic behaviour for many classes. To make an example, let's say it is a sort of drawing behaviour: there are many different type of objects that may be drawn, and they all need a few attributes and some common code to implement the drawing process. Let's say I put this common part in a class called Drawable.
The problem is that these different classes may well be extending other classes, so I can't have them inherit from Drawable. The obvious solution would be using an interface (IDrawable), but then I couldn't implement any code in it; another solution I can think of would use composition, by creating a DrawAction class that all of my classes would instantiate, but this would require me to put the same code (if just a couple of lines) in all the classes that I need to make drawable.
Can someone please give me suggestions on how to do this? Thanks.
You can create instance of DrawAction class and then just inject it into other classes using constructor dependency injection rather than explicitly instantiating it by each class, this give you less coupled design as well:
IDrawAction drawAction = new DrawAction();
var drawable = new Drawable(drawAction);
public class Drawable
{
public Drawable(IDrawAction drawAction)
{
}
}
This may be a situation for composition, rather than inheritance.
You could implement the drawing behavior in one class, and then have all the classes that need it maintain a reference to it.
If you need to support many different drawing algorithms, you might want to look at the Strategy Pattern. Here you would implement many different drawing algorithms, all implementing some sort of interface, and the object that needs to draw would have a reference to one of them.
Depending on your situation, if certain types of objects always need a certain type of drawing algorithm, the selection of which drawing class could be automated with the use of an IoC container, like StructureMap or Unity.
Here's an example of the strategy pattern from DoFactory
You can create extension methods for IDrawable:
public static class DrawableExtensions
{
public static int CalculateSize(this IDrawable drawable)
{
return drawable.Width * drawable.Height;
}
}
This way these methoda apear to be on the IDrawable interface:
IDrawable d = new Circle();
int size = d.CalculateSize();
The downside is that extension methods are static and you can't override them.
It sounds like the Decorator pattern may be appropriate for what you are trying to achieve.
See Decorator Pattern Wikipedia entry
Instead of trying to inherit the common "Drawing" logic, place the common logic in another class ie, a "Draw*er*"
When an object must be drawn, pass it to the appropriate Draw*er* (or make a Draw*er* for it)
You may still find an IDrawable interface useful so that the Draw*er* code can be written against a known interface.
You may end up with multiple Draw*er* implementations (in which case you will need to handle dynamic selection of the appropriate Drawer for each object to be drawn)
C# doesn't supports multiple inheritance. Stop. You cannot do that.
You are talking about "Mixins"... that are still not supported in C#.
However there are several alternatives you can use.
The simpler one is to use a Mixin class that you can add as a field in all your classes.
For example...
public class DrawerMixin
{
public void DrawRectangle() { ... }
}
public class MyClass1 : Component
{
public DrawerMixin Drawer { get; private set; }
public MyClass1()
{
this.Drawer = new DrawerMixin(this);
}
public MyClass1(DrawerMixin drawer)
{
this.Drawer = drawer;
}
public void MyFunc()
{
...
this.Drawer.DrawRectangle();
}
}
what I mean by that is:
I basically have a class that has too many properties and functions now. To remain performant and understandable, it needs to shrink somehow. But I still need all those properties and methods somewhere.
It's like this right now:
class Apple
float seedCount;
...
...about 25 variables and properties here.
void Update() <-- a huge method that checks for each property and updates if so
In most cases the class needs almost none of those properties. In some cases in needs to be able to grow very selectively and gain a feature or lose a feature.
The only solution I have come up with, is that I create a bunch of classes and place some properties in there. I only initialize this classes object when one of those properties is needed, otherwise it remains null.
class Apple
Seed seed;
Many problems because of that:
I constantly have to check for every single object and feature each frame. If the seed is not initialized I don't have to calculate anything for it. If it is, I have to.
If I decided to put more than 1 property/feature into the Seed class, I need to check every single one of those aswell.
It just gets more and more complicated. The problem I have is therefore, that I need granular control over all the features and can't split them intelligently into larger subclasses. Any form of subclass would just contain a bunch of properties that need to be checked and updated if wanted.
I can't exactly create subclasses of Apple, because of the need for such high granular control. It would be madness to create as many classes as there are combinations of properties.
My main goal: I want short code.
It would be madness to create as many classes as there are combinations of properties.
Sounds like you might be looking for the Decorator Pattern. It's purpose is to make it easier to manage objects that can have many different combinations of properties without an exponentially growing heirarchy. You just have one small subclass for each property or behavior (not necessarily one C# property, just something you can group together) and then you can compose them together at runtime.
In your case, each Apple decorator class will override your Update method, and make the calculations necessary for its parts, and then call base.Update to pass it to the next in line.
Your final answer will heavily depend on exactly what your "Apple" really is.
After reviewing your comments and samples in my other answer, I've thought about the Decorator pattern and how it was being used vs how you want things to work. I've come to the conclusion that Decorator is not right for this purpose. I'm thinking Strategy instead. I have modified the previous sample code for you to take a look at.
I've gotten rid of the decorators altogether. The Broodfather abstract class remains. It has two additional properties an IBroodfatherMagicAbility and an IBroodfatherBloodthirstAbility. This two properties will allow you to access the different attributes that pertain to those abilities, however the key to this all is that the strategy for implementing the abilities can change at runtime (see Strategy pattern).
There are two classes each that implement a "strategy" for both bloodthrist and magic.
IBroodfatherBloodthirstAbility.cs - this is the interface that all "bloodthirst strategies" must implement.
BroodfatherNonBloodThristy.cs - class that implements the attributes for non-bloodthirsty.
BroodfatherBloodThristy.cs - class that implements the attributes for bloodthirsty.
IBroodfatherMagicAbility.cs - this is the interface that all "magical strategies" must implement.
BroodfatherNonMagical.cs - class that implements a strategy for non-magical.
BroodfatherMagical.cs - class that implements a strategy for magical.
BasicBroodfather.cs - this is similar to the previous example, except that now when an instance is created the magic and bloodthrist properties get set to new instances of the non-magical and non-bloodthristy strategy objects.
Program.cs is the driver that shows the classes and how the different strategies can get swapped in and out at runtime.
I think you'll find that more suited to how you wanted things to work.
you may use a nested class in Apple class
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173120(VS.80).aspx
I think the key thing here is that you are trying to hold everything in one class. Because of that, the class must be constantly checking what it has and what it doesn't. The solution is to create subclasses or decorators that already know whether or not they have a particular thing. Then they don't have to be checking it each time.
Because you have so many properties which may be combined in different ways, it sounds like the decorator solution is more up your alley.
I think you're in the right path: composition. You compose your class with the other classes that are needed. But you also need to delegate responsibility accordingly. In your example, it's the Seed class that should be responsible for checking it's internal state, and Apple just delegates to it.
As for the optional features problem, maybe you can use null objects instead of null references. This way, you don't need to check for null everytime, and the code is more consistent.
I've been pondering this question for a bit and I've come up with an alternate solution. This may be a bit unorthodox and anti-object oriented, but if you're not faint of heart read on...
Building upon the Apple example: the Apple class can contain many properties, these properties which could be categorized into related groups. For the example I rolled with an Apple class with some properties related to the apple's seeds and others related to the apple's skin.
Apple
a. Seed
a1. GetSeedCount
a2. ...
b. Skin
b1. GetSkinColor
b2. ...
I'm using a dictionary object to store all the apples properties.
I wrote extension methods to define accessors to the properties, using different classes to keep them separate and organized.
By using a dictionary for the properties, you can iterate through all properties stored thusfar at any point (if you have to check all of them, as it sounded like you needed in your update method). Unfortunately you lose strong typing of the data (at least in my sample I did because I'm using a Dictionary< string, string>. You could have separate dictionaries for every type needed, but that would require more plumbing code to route the property access to the correct dictionary.
Using extension methods to define accessors to the properties allows you to separate the code for each logical categories of properties. This keeps things organized into separate chunks of related logic.
Here is a sample I came up with to test how this would work, given with the standard warning that if you were to continue down this path robustification would be in order (validation, error handling, etc.).
Apple.cs
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
public class Apple
{
// Define the set of valid properties for all apple objects.
private static HashSet<string> AllowedProperties = new HashSet<string>(
new string [] {
"Color",
"SeedCount"
});
// The main store for all properties
private Dictionary<string, string> Properties = new Dictionary<string, string>();
// Indexer for accessing properties
// Access via the indexer should be restricted to the extension methods!
// Unfortunately can't enforce this by making it private because then extension methods wouldn't be able to use it as they are now.
public string this[string prop]
{
get
{
if (!AllowedProperties.Contains(prop))
{
// throw exception
}
if (Properties.ContainsKey(prop))
{
return this.Properties[prop];
}
else
{
// TODO throw 'property unitialized' exeception || lookup & return default value for this property || etc.
// this return is here just to make the sample runable
return "0";
}
}
set
{
if (!AllowedProperties.Contains(prop))
{
// TODO throw 'invalid property' exception
// these assignments are here just to make the sample runable
prop = "INVALID";
value = "0";
}
this.Properties[prop] = value.ToString();
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var kv in this.Properties)
{
sb.AppendFormat("{0}={1}\n", kv.Key, kv.Value);
}
return sb.ToString();
}
}
}
AppleExtensions.cs
namespace AppleExtensionMethods
{
using System;
using ConsoleApplication1;
// Accessors for Seed Properties
public static class Seed
{
public static float GetSeedCount(this Apple apple)
{
return Convert.ToSingle(apple["SeedCount"]);
}
public static void SetSeedCount(this Apple apple, string count)
{
apple["SeedCount"] = count;
}
}
// Accessors for Skin Properties
public static class Skin
{
public static string GetSkinColor(this Apple apple)
{
return apple["Color"];
}
public static void SetSkinColor(this Apple apple, string color)
{
apple["Color"] = ValidSkinColorOrDefault(apple, color);
}
private static string ValidSkinColorOrDefault(this Apple apple, string color)
{
switch (color.ToLower())
{
case "red":
return color;
case "green":
return color;
default:
return "rotten brown";
}
}
}
}
Here is a test drive:
Program.cs
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
using System;
using AppleExtensionMethods;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Apple apple = new Apple();
apple.SetSkinColor("Red");
apple.SetSeedCount("8");
Console.WriteLine("My apple is {0} and has {1} seed(s)\r\n", apple.GetSkinColor(), apple.GetSeedCount());
apple.SetSkinColor("green");
apple.SetSeedCount("4");
Console.WriteLine("Now my apple is {0} and has {1} seed(s)\r\n", apple.GetSkinColor(), apple.GetSeedCount());
apple.SetSkinColor("blue");
apple.SetSeedCount("0");
Console.WriteLine("Now my apple is {0} and has {1} seed(s)\r\n", apple.GetSkinColor(), apple.GetSeedCount());
apple.SetSkinColor("yellow");
apple.SetSeedCount("15");
Console.WriteLine(apple.ToString());
// Unfortunatly there is nothing stopping users of the class from doing something like that shown below.
// This would be bad because it bypasses any behavior that you have defined in the get/set functions defined
// as extension methods.
// One thing in your favor here is it is inconvenient for user of the class to find the valid property names as
// they'd have to go look at the apple class. It's much easier (from a lazy programmer standpoint) to use the
// extension methods as they show up in intellisense :) However, relying on lazy programming does not a contract make.
// There would have to be an agreed upon contract at the user of the class level that states,
// "I will never use the indexer and always use the extension methods!"
apple["Color"] = "don't panic";
apple["SeedCount"] = "on second thought...";
Console.WriteLine(apple.ToString());
}
}
}
Addressing your comment from 7/11 (the date, not the store) :)
In the sample code you provided, there is a comment that states:
"As you can see, I can't call
BasicBroodmother methods on "monster"
You realize you could do something like this at that point:
BasicBroodmother bm = monster as BasicBroodmother;
if (bm != null)
{
bm.Eat();
}
There isn't much meat to your code, (I understand it was just an example), but when I look at it I get the feeling that you should be able to improve the design. My immediate thought was having an abstract class for broodmother which would contain default implementations of any attributes/actions that are common to all broodmothers. Then specialized broodmothers, like the magical broodmother, would contain any specialized attributes/actions specific to the magical broodmother, but also inherit from the abstract class and if necessary override the nessecary base attributes/actions.
I would take a look at the Strategy pattern for the design of the actions so that the actions (i.e. behaviours like eat, spawn, attack) can be swappable based the type of monster.
[edit 7/13]
Don't have time to go into details right now (need sleep), but I put together some sample code showing a different approach.
The code consists of:
Broodfather.cs - abstract class filled with all things common to different Broodfathers "types."
BasicBroodFather.cs - concrete class that inherits from Broodfather.
BroodfatherDecorator.cs - abstract class to be inherited by all Broodfather decorators.
MagicalBroodfather.cs - this class decorates/wraps a Broodfather with "magic"
BloodthirstyBroodfather.cs - this class decorates/wraps a Broodfather with "bloodthirst"
program.cs - demonstrates two examples: The first starts with a basic broodfather that gets wrapped by magic then by bloodthirst. The second starts with a basic broodfather and wraps it in the other order bloodthirst, then magic.
Maybe your methods are not were they are supposed to be?
If you separated the Seed class from the Apple class, why don't you move the methods that use the Seed information to the Seed class too?
If those methods need information on other Apple properties, you can pass it as a parameter.
By doing this, I guess you can eliminate the initialization checks...
This is a great book about how to solve this kind of problem:
Refactoring
My main goal: I want short code.
Options:
Rewrite all functions as static and create a class for each one.
Rewrite your codebase in Perl.
Remove all comments.
I would like to write code without a lot of switch, if/else, and other typical statements that would execute logic based on user input.
For example, lets say I have a Car class that I want to assemble and call Car.Run(). More importantly, lets say for the tires I have a chocie of 4 different Tire classes to choose from based on the user input.
For the, i dunno, body type, letS say i have 10 body type classes to choose from to construct my car object, and so on and so on.
What is the best pattern to use when this example is magnified by 1000, with the number of configurable parameters.
Is there even a pattern for this ? Ive looked at factory and abstract factory patterns, they dont quite fit the bill for this, although it would seem like it should.
I don't think the factory pattern would be remiss here. This is how I would set it up. I don't see how you can get away from switch/if based logic as fundamentally, your user is making a choice.
public class Car {
public Engine { get; set; }
//more properties here
}
public class EngineFactory {
public Engine CreateEngine(EngineType type {
switch (type) {
case Big:
return new BigEngine();
case Small:
return new SmallEngine();
}
}
}
public class Engine {
}
public class BigEngine : Engine {
}
public class SmallEngine : Engine {
}
public class CarCreator {
public _engineFactory = new EngineFactory();
//more factories
public Car Create() {
Car car = new Car();
car.Engine = _engineFactory.CreateEngine(ddlEngineType.SelectedValue);
//more setup to follow
return car;
}
}
The problem you tell of can be solved using Dependency Injection.
There're many frameworks implementing this pattern (for example, for .NET - excellent Castle.Windsor container).
I think elder_george is correct: you should look into DI containers. However, you might want to check the builder pattern (here too), which deals with "constructing" complex objects by assembling multiple pieces. If anything, this might provide you with some inspiration, and it sounds closer to your problem than the Factory.
You can get around having to use a lot of if or switch statements if you introduce the logic of registration in your factory, a registration entry would add a binding to your dictionary in your factory:
Dictionary<Type,Func<Engine>> _knownEngines;
In the above line, you bind a type to a factory function for example like so:
private void RegisterEngine<TEngineType>(Func<T> factoryFunc) where TEngineType : Engine
{
_knownEngines.Add(typeof(TEngineType), factoryFunc);
}
This would allow you to call:
RegisterEngine<BigEngine>(() => new BigEngine());
on your factory
So now you have a way of allowing your factory to know about a large number of engines without needing to resort to if/switch statements. If all your engines have a parameterless constructor you could even improve the above to:
public void RegisterEngine<TEngineType>() where TEngineType : Engine, new()
{
_knownEngines.Add(typeof(TEngineType), () => new TEngineType());
}
which would allow you to register your engines that your factory can create like so:
RegisterEngine<BigEngine>();
Now we simply need a way of associating a user input to the right type.
If we have some sort of enumeration then, we might might want to map the enum values to their corresponding type. There are many ways to achieve this, either with a dictionary in a similar way as we have done already, but this time it is an enum as a key and a type as a value or by decorating the enum values with their corresponding type as demonstrated here (If you have a very large number of values, this possibility could be interesting)
But, we can skip all this and just take a shortcut and associate the enumeration with the factory function directly.
So we would make our Dictionary look like this:
Dictionary<MyEngineEnumeration,Func<Engine>> _knownEngines;
You would register your engines
public void RegisterEngine<TEngineType>(MyEngineEnumeration key) where TEngineType : Engine, new()
{
_knownEngines.Add(key, () => new TEngineType());
}
like so:
RegisterEngine(MyEngineEnumeration.BigEngine);
And then you would have some sort of create method on your factory class that takes your enumeration value as key:
public Engine ResolveEngine(MyEngineEnumeration key)
{
// some extra safety checks can go here
return _knownEngines[key]
}
So your code would set your
Car.Engine = EngineFactory.ResolveEngine((MyEngineEnumeration)ddlEngine.SelectedValue)
You could follow the same pattern with wheels and so on.
Depending on your requirements, following a registration/resolution approach would allow you to potentially configure your available engines externally in an xml file or a database and allow you to make more engines available without modifying the release code file but by deploying a new assembly which is an interesting prospect.
Good luck!
You could use something like this:
Define a class representing an option within a set of options, ie. a TireType class, BodyType class.
Create an instance of the class for each option, get the data from a store. Fill a collection, ie TireTypeCollection.
Use the collection to fill any control that you show the user for him to select the options, in this way the user selects actually the option class selected.
Use the obejcts selected to build the class.
If any functionality requires chnges in behavior, you could use lamdas to represent that functionality and serialize the representation of the code to save it the store; or you could use delegates, creating a method for each functionality and selecting the correct method and saving it into a delegate on object creation.
What I would consider important in this approach is that any option presented to the user is fully functional, not only a list of names or ids.
You can try the policy class technique in C++.
http://beta.boost.org/community/generic_programming.html#policy
Are you simply asking if you can create an instance of a class based on a string (or maybe even a Type object)?
You can use Activator.CreateInstance for that.
Type wheelType = Type.GetType("Namespace.WheelType");
Wheel w = Activator.CreateInstance(wheelType) as Wheel;
You'd probably want to checking around the classes that you wind up creating, but that's another story.
Every so often, I run into a case where I want a collection of classes all to possess similar logic. For example, maybe I want both a Bird and an Airplane to be able to Fly(). If you're thinking "strategy pattern", I would agree, but even with strategy, it's sometimes impossible to avoid duplicating code.
For example, let's say the following apply (and this is very similar to a real situation I recently encountered):
Both Bird and Airplane need to hold an instance of an object that implements IFlyBehavior.
Both Bird and Airplane need to ask the IFlyBehavior instance to Fly() when OnReadyToFly() is called.
Both Bird and Airplane need to ask the IFlyBehavior instance to Land() when OnReadyToLand() is called.
OnReadyToFly() and OnReadyToLand() are private.
Bird inherits Animal and Airplane inherits PeopleMover.
Now, let's say we later add Moth, HotAirBalloon, and 16 other objects, and let's say they all follow the same pattern.
We're now going to need 20 copies of the following code:
private IFlyBehavior _flyBehavior;
private void OnReadyToFly()
{
_flyBehavior.Fly();
}
private void OnReadyToLand()
{
_flyBehavior.Land();
}
Two things I don't like about this:
It's not very DRY (the same nine lines of code are repeated over and over again). If we discovered a bug or added a BankRight() to IFlyBehavior, we would need to propogate the changes to all 20 classes.
There's not any way to enforce that all 20 classes implement this repetitive internal logic consistently. We can't use an interface because interfaces only permit public members. We can't use an abstract base class because the objects already inherit base classes, and C# doesn't allow multiple inheritance (and even if the classes didn't already inherit classes, we might later wish to add a new behavior that implements, say, ICrashable, so an abstract base class is not always going to be a viable solution).
What if...?
What if C# had a new construct, say pattern or template or [fill in your idea here], that worked like an interface, but allowed you to put private or protected access modifiers on the members? You would still need to provide an implementation for each class, but if your class implemented the PFlyable pattern, you would at least have a way to enforce that every class had the necessary boilerplate code to call Fly() and Land(). And, with a modern IDE like Visual Studio, you'd be able to automatically generate the code using the "Implement Pattern" command.
Personally, I think it would make more sense to just expand the meaning of interface to cover any contract, whether internal (private/protected) or external (public), but I suggested adding a whole new construct first because people seem to be very adamant about the meaning of the word "interface", and I didn't want semantics to become the focus of people's answers.
Questions:
Regardless of what you call it, I'd like to know whether the feature I'm suggesting here makes sense. Do we need some way to handle cases where we can't abstract away as much code as we'd like, due to the need for restrictive access modifiers or for reasons outside of the programmer's control?
Update
From AakashM's comment, I believe there is already a name for the feature I'm requesting: a Mixin. So, I guess my question can be shortened to: "Should C# allow Mixins?"
The problem you describe could be solved using the Visitor pattern (everything can be solved using the Visitor pattern, so beware! )
The visitor pattern lets you move the implementation logic towards a new class. That way you do not need a base class, and a visitor works extremely well over different inheritance trees.
To sum up:
New functionality does not need to be added to all different types
The call to the visitor can be pulled up to the root of each class hierarchy
For a reference, see the Visitor pattern
Cant we use extension methods for this
public static void OnReadyToFly(this IFlyBehavior flyBehavior)
{
_flyBehavior.Fly()
}
This mimics the functionality you wanted (or Mixins)
Visual Studio already offers this in 'poor mans form' with code snippets. Also, with the refactoring tools a la ReSharper (and maybe even the native refactoring support in Visual Studio), you get a long way in ensuring consistency.
[EDIT: I didn't think of Extension methods, this approach brings you even further (you only need to keep the _flyBehaviour as a private variable). This makes the rest of my answer probably obsolete...]
However; just for the sake of the discussion: how could this be improved? Here's my suggestion.
One could imagine something like the following to be supported by a future version of the C# compiler:
// keyword 'pattern' marks the code as eligible for inclusion in other classes
pattern WithFlyBehaviour
{
private IFlyBehavior_flyBehavior;
private void OnReadyToFly()
{
_flyBehavior.Fly();
}
[patternmethod]
private void OnReadyToLand()
{
_flyBehavior.Land();
}
}
Which you could use then something like:
// probably the attribute syntax can not be reused here, but you get the point
[UsePattern(FlyBehaviour)]
class FlyingAnimal
{
public void SetReadyToFly(bool ready)
{
_readyToFly = ready;
if (ready) OnReadyToFly(); // OnReadyToFly() callable, although not explicitly present in FlyingAnimal
}
}
Would this be an improvement? Probably. Is it really worth it? Maybe...
You just described aspect oriented programming.
One popular AOP implementation for C# seems to be PostSharp (Main site seems to be down/not working for me though, this is the direct "About" page).
To follow up on the comment: I'm not sure if PostSharp supports it, but I think you are talking about this part of AOP:
Inter-type declarations provide a way
to express crosscutting concerns
affecting the structure of modules.
Also known as open classes, this
enables programmers to declare in one
place members or parents of another
class, typically in order to combine
all the code related to a concern in
one aspect.
Could you get this sort of behavior by using the new ExpandoObject in .NET 4.0?
Scala traits were developed to address this kind of scenario. There's also some research to include traits in C#.
UPDATE: I created my own experiment to have roles in C#. Take a look.
I will use extension methods to implement the behaviour as the code shows.
Let Bird and Plane objects implement a property for IFlyBehavior object for an interface IFlyer
public interface IFlyer
{
public IFlyBehavior FlyBehavior
}
public Bird : IFlyer
{
public IFlyBehaviour FlyBehavior {get;set;}
}
public Airplane : IFlyer
{
public IFlyBehaviour FlyBehavior {get;set;}
}
Create an extension class for IFlyer
public IFlyerExtensions
{
public void OnReadyToFly(this IFlyer flyer)
{
flyer.FlyBehavior.Fly();
}
public void OnReadyToLand(this IFlyer flyer)
{
flyer.FlyBehavior.Land();
}
}