We Keep Coding

C# cast polymorphic object into specific type without knowing what that 'specific type' is

Thanks ahead, community!
As the title describes, I would like to cast an object that is in parent type to a child type, which is actually a child type, whilst this 'specific type' cannot be known until runtime.
Lets say I have following data holder:
public class Holder {}
public class Holder<T> : Holder
{
public T Value;
}
And this Holder (not Holder<T>) will be given to some script at runtime.
I need to cast this Holder into Holder<T> (eg, Holder<string>), so that I can access the Value : T.
For now, I can just mannually add casting cases and their coresponding methods to process it, but time by time there will be more types that goes into this Holder<T>, and it would become imposible to manage in this way.
Is there a way to accomplish this objective?
This Holder must not be flattened, as it is being used in a context as below:
public class SomeNode
{
protected Holder holder;
}
public class SomeNode<T> : SomeNode
{
public SomeNode<T>()
{
holder = new Holder<T>();
}
}
I have no clue how to approach this, nor a search keyword to catch a hint about this.
Automatic suggestions came up before posting seems not my case, which were:
C# Create (or cast) objects of a specific type at runtime
C# Accessing generic Method without knowing specific type
Edit
Thanks to #W.F., I could start searching with an effective keyword 'dynamic object', and I ended up finding System.Reflection as my desired soultion.
It looks like as belows and currently it solves my immediate issue:
holder.GetType().GetProperty("GetValue").Invoke(holder, null);
But as pointed out by #OlivierJacot-Descombes, my structure and a way of using it is breaking a purpose of polymorphism. Therefore I still need a better solution, which would do a job I am looking for and also not breaking polymorphism.
Possible walkaround that comes in my head is that, first, create a method GetValue() in Holder, and also create class that inherits from Holder to implement this method:
public class Holder
{
public virtual string GetValue() => "";
}
public class Holder<T> : Holder
{
public T Value;
}
public class FloatHolder : Holder<float> //for example
{
public override string GetValue() => Value.ToString();
}
Second, change node structure like:
public class SomeNode
{
protected Holder holder;
}
public class SomeNode<T> : SomeNode {}
public class FloatNode : SomeNode<float>
{
public FloatNode()
{
holder = new FloatHolder();
}
}
Then, I can do like:
public class EchoNode : SomeNode
{
public void Tick()
{
Console.WriteLine(holder.GetValue());
}
}
Seems like too many classes are being created, but it also seems not breaking polymorphism.
Looking for further advices. Again, Thanks!
Edit#2
I already said this in the comment, but for better readability, I write this here as well.
Both Dynamic Object and System.Reflection were easy and fitting solutions which I was looking for, but they weren't best solutions in general.
At the beginning I was misinterpreting #OlivierJacot-Descombes 's answer. He was overall pointing out two impediments: first, my class structure is breaking polymorphism, and second, reflection is slow (and later I noticed, dynamic object as well). I didn't catch the last bit at first so I went through a long way.
Moreover, turned out, I couldn't use dynamic object for my project context, as I am not using normal C# but a Unity C#. Technically I can, but they don't blend well.
Thankfully, my revised solution was acceptable. Therefore I decided to select #OlivierJacot-Descombes 's post as an answer. But I hope, still, people would approach and leave me an good advices.
Thank you all.

If you need to cast to a specific type, you are doing polymorphism wrong. Of course you could do something like this:
switch (holder)
{
case Holder<string> stringHolder:
DoStringThing(stringHolder.Value);
break;
case Holder<int> intHolder:
DoIntThing(intHolder.Value);
break;
...
}
See also: Switch statements with patterns.
However, the idea behind polymorphism is to be able to do things without having to know the specific type. Therefore, re-design the holder classes and have them do the type specific thing themselves:
public abstract class Holder
{
public abstract void DoThing();
}
public abstract class Holder<T> : Holder
{
public abstract T Value { get; }
}
Some examples of specific types:
public class StringHolder : Holder<string>
{
public StringHolder(string value)
{
Value = value;
}
public override string Value { get; }
public override void DoThing()
{
Console.WriteLine($"String of length {Value.Length} is \"{Value}\"");
}
}
public class IntHolder : Holder<int>
{
public IntHolder(int value)
{
Value = value;
}
public override int Value { get; }
public override void DoThing()
{
Console.WriteLine($"The integer {Value} is {(Value % 2 == 0 ? "even" : "odd")}");
}
}
Now you can simply write
holder.DoThing();
... without having to cast.
Update
Your edited question indeed shows a polymorphic version.
Here I want to present another approach which merges Holder and Holder<T> in a single class through the use of interfaces.
public interface IHolder
{
object Value { get; set; }
}
public interface IHolder<T> : IHolder
{
new T Value { get; set; } // The new keyword hides the inherited property.
}
public class Holder<T> : IHolder<T>
{
object IHolder.Value
{
get => Value; // Returns T Holder<T>.Value as object.
set => Value = value is T t ? t : default; // Sets T Holder<T>.Value.
}
public T Value { get; set; }
}
Holder<T> now implements a "neutral" Value property declared in IHolder based on the object type. Since it implements it explicitly (i.e., instead of public object Value we write object IHolder.Value), this property is hidden, unless it is accessed through the interface. This allows you, for example, to declare a List<IHolder> and to retrieve different kinds of Holder<T> values with list[i].Value as object.
But you have a variable Holder<float> floatHolder, you can get the strongly typed float value.
Note that this still allows you do derive more specific types like class FloatHolder : Holder<float>, but it might not even be necessary.
If you intend to work only with derived types, you can mark Holder<T> as abstract and also all the members that must be implemented by the deriving classes. This makes it impossible to create an instance of Holder<T> with new and also allows you to declare abstract methods without body.

community! It's a good question. That was interesting.
I think this is simple solve for this question.
We just need to create a simple constructor like below
public class Holder
{
public string SomeData; // just example data
public Holder()
{
}
public Holder(Holder someData)
{
SomeData = someData.SomeData;
}
}
public class Holder<T> : Holder
{
public T Value;
public Holder(Holder a, T t = default)
:base(a)
{
Value = t;
}
}
public class Programm
{
void Main()
{
var h = new Holder();
var g = new Holder<string>(h);
}
}

c# correct way to access private constant on other class

If I have a class
public class Person
{
private const string MyConst = "SomeValue";
[MyAttribute(MyConst)]
public string Name {get;set;}
}
and inside other class I would like to access MyConst what would be the best way to do so, keeping all encapsulated? Is it correct Person class?

If you wish to access MyConst from another class then you are no longer encapsulating it. Adding properties or method calls around this will not mean it is encapsulated. It's a constant. It cannot change. So either its publicly accessible or it's not. If another class needs access, make it internal or public.
Anything else is somewhere between denial and a code smell.

It all depends on the protection you need on MyConst. If no body should be able to read or write this property other than Person then you shouldn't expose it through either Get or Set methods. If everybody can read but cant write this, then you can expose it through a read only property. If only one class (e.g. ClassB) can read it then you can provide a function in Person that takes a ClassB object and passes the private Const to it:
public class ClassB
{
private string ConstValue {get; set;}
public void SetConstValue(string constValue)
{
ConstValue = constValue;
}
public void GetConstFromPerson(Person p)
{
p.GetConstValue(this);
}
}
public class Person
{
private const string MyConst = "A";
public void GetConstValue(ClassB obj)
{
//todo: contract validations
obj.SetConstValue(MyConst);
}
}
[Edit]
Another solution is to define the constant as Internal and only have Person and CLassB in the assembly

make a public property that returns MyConst?
public string MyPublicConst {get{ return MyConst;} private set; } - but why do you want to do this?

You can have it public (Duh!), you can use a property to encapsulate it if you are planning on changing it from a constant to something else, or you could have a method that return it to you.

class Encapsulation{
private string a;
public string AccessValue(){
return a;
}
}
you can do that to any variable I think, for sure the simple ones.
This is a public method from the same class that returns the same value of the private string.
In that way you can get the value from outside the class without declare it as public.
To reach it from another class you can just write:
class Player{ string b = Encapsulaion.AccessValue()}

Automatically assign members and methods to certain classes

I have many classes that have the following members/methods:
private String name;
public String getName() { return name; }
public void setName(String name) { this.name = name; }
public bool isNamed(String name) { return getName().Equals(name); }
Every time I create a new class that has a member "name", I have to rewrite all these.
Is there a way to write the methods one time and to make them apply to any class I want?

Your code can be converted to:
public String Name { get;set;}
Then you can use it as so:
nObject.Name = "Stefan";
if(nObject.Name == "Stefan"){
// do something
}else{
// do something else
}
To apply to all the classes automatically you can just make this into an interface:
public interface INameable{
public String Name {get;set;}
}
Doing this will allow you to inherit from other base classes of importance.
see here for an example
class YourClass : INameable{
//implementation
}
And now, YourClass has "Name" property automatically inserted.

You'd simply define a base class (you could make it abstract):
public abstract class Named
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
and inherit from it:
public class Person : Named
{
}
You don't really need isNamed as in C#, it is perfectly safe to compare strings with ==.
If your class already inherits from another class which is not Named, you'll have to manually add the Name auto property or resort to simulated multiple inheritance.
Alternatively, you could create a specific modification of Named for every base class:
public abstract class NamedLifeForm : LifeForm
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Person : NamedLifeForm
{
// Person inherits both a Name and all relevant members of LifeForm
}
Another alternative would be to create a generic wrapper, Named<T>, that would have two properties: the Name and an instance of T. But that would make construction and access cumbersome, so I don't recommend it.

C# has AutoProperties just for that:
public String Name {get; set; }
This handles both the getName() and the setName() you talked about.
Usage:
To set a value: Name = "MyName;
To get a value: string theName = Name;

I'd suggest reading up on Object Oriented Programming. You can save yourself a lot of time and effort (and heckling). Here is a good primer http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Object-Oriented-Programming-Dan-Clark/dp/1430235306
To answer your specific question, you should read about inheritance. It lets you define a "Parent" class with functions. Then you can inherit with "Child" classes and have those same functions.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173149(v=vs.80).aspx
Here is a code example
public class PersonBase
{
private String name;
public String getName()
{
return this.name;
}
public void setName(string name)
{
this.name = name;
}
public bool isNamed(string name)
{
return this.name.Equals(name);
}
}
public class Employee : PersonBase
{
}
Employee will now have whatever was defined by PersonBase.
As others have pointed out, you can simplify you code with properties. Also you should check for null values before using "this.name".
Here is a link to what properties are:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x9fsa0sw(v=vs.80).aspx
The simplified code example would be:
public class PersonBase
{
public String Name { get; set; }
}
public class Employee : PersonBase
{
}
I hope this helps get you pointed in the right direction for learning about these concepts.

Trying to get a literal via reflection

Suppose I have a the following code:
Container.cs
public class Container
{
public readonly string IdType;
public Container( string aIdType )
{
IdType = aIdType;
}
}
SuperContainerA .cs
public class SuperContainerA : Container
{
public SuperContainerA( /*x parameters*/ ) : base("A") {}
}
SuperContainerB.cs
public class SuperContainerB : Container
{
public SuperContainerB( /*y parameters*/ ) : base("B") {}
}
SuperContainerToTheInfinityAndBeyond.cs
public class SuperContainerB : Container
{
public SuperContainerB( /*y parameters*/ ) : base("It's Over 9000!") {}
}
Based on that, what I'm trying to retrieve is the "A" and "B" that are being sent to the TypeId from the constructor.
The catch here is... I need to retrieve those values during the initialization of the program, before creating an instance of those classes, so I thought that using reflection is my best bet here. (Note: Creating an instance of the classes to retrieve the value would be valid if the number of parameters for each constructor would be the same, but they can change. :()
Is it possible to use reflection to check the literals of my source code and/or Assemblies? (If I can see something like the source code, then I can use Regex to get the value.)(Note: Including the sources as resource files to my program is not an option :P)
I'm thinking of declaring constants to hold the value and force an naming rule on then, so that I could use reflection later to grab then back. Something like ...
public class SuperContainerA
{
public const string ctIdType = "A";
}
public class SuperContainerB
{
public const string ctIdType = "B";
}
... But I'm not sure if this is the best approach to this problem, since I won't have anything to help me check if these consts have been declared and if they got the proper name during compile time.
Actually, if the language had some kind of static inheritance, this would help a lot in this situation, but I hear some programmers complaing that static inheritance is more of an head ache than a cure.
Anyway, I'm searching for alternatives. Any idea is welcome.

Attributes to the rescue!
public class IdTypeAttribute: Attribute
{
public string IdType { get; private set; }
public IdTypeAttribute(string idType)
{
IdType = idType;
}
}
[IdType("B")]
public class SuperContainerB: Container
{
// whatever you like...
}
You can then access the Attribute via reflection. Easy enough to do...
var type = typeof(SuperContainerB);
var attribute = (IdTypeAttribute)type.GetCustomAttributes(
typeof(IdTypeAttribute), false)[0];
var idType = attribute.IdType;

Why not simply use the concrete type to look up the string value that you seem to want associated with it?
public class SuperA : Container
{
public string IdType { get { return IdTypeFactory.Get( GetType() ); } }
}
public static class IdTypeFactory
{
public static string Get( Type containerType ) { ... }
}
The primary benefit of this solution would be to gather all your string literals in one central location. Alternatively, go with the abstract super class.

Creating read-only versions of classes in a complex object structure

In my current project I need to be able to have both editable and read-only versions of classes. So that when the classes are displayed in a List or PropertGrid the user is not able to edit objects they should not be allowed to.
To do this I'm following the design pattern shown in the diagram below. I start with a read-only interface (IWidget), and then create an edtiable class which implements this interface (Widget). Next I create a read-only class (ReadOnlyWidget) which simply wraps the mutable class and also implements the read only interface.
I'm following this pattern for a number of different unrelated types. But now I want to add a search function to my program, which can generate results that include any variety of types including both mutable and immutable versions. So now I want to add another set of interfaces (IItem, IMutableItem) that define properties which apply to all types. So IItem defines a set of generic immutable properties, and IMutableItem defines the same properties but editable. In the end a search will return a collection of IItems, which can then later be cast to more specific types if needed.
Yet, I'm not sure if I'm setting up the relationships to IMutable and IItem correctly. Right now I have each of the interfaces (IWidget, IDooHickey) inheriting from IItem, and then the mutable classes (Widget, DooHickey) in addition also implement IMutableItem.
Alternatively, I was also thinking I could then set IMutableItem to inherit from IItem, which would hide its read-only properties with new properties that have both get and set accessors. Then the mutable classes would implement IMutableItem, and the read-only classes would implement IItem.
I'd appreciate any suggestions or criticisms regarding any of this.
Class Diagram
Code
public interface IItem
{
string ItemName { get; }
}
public interface IMutableItem
{
string ItemName { get; set; }
}
public interface IWidget:IItem
{
void Wiggle();
}
public abstract class Widget : IWidget, IMutableItem
{
public string ItemName
{
get;
set;
}
public void Wiggle()
{
//wiggle a little
}
}
public class ReadOnlyWidget : IWidget
{
private Widget _widget;
public ReadOnlyWidget(Widget widget)
{
this._widget = widget;
}
public void Wiggle()
{
_widget.Wiggle();
}
public string ItemName
{
get {return _widget.ItemName; }
}
}
public interface IDoohickey:IItem
{
void DoSomthing();
}
public abstract class Doohickey : IDoohickey, IMutableItem
{
public void DoSomthing()
{
//work it, work it
}
public string ItemName
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class ReadOnlyDoohickey : IDoohickey
{
private Doohickey _doohicky;
public ReadOnlyDoohickey(Doohickey doohicky)
{
this._doohicky = doohicky;
}
public string ItemName
{
get { return _doohicky.ItemName; }
}
public void DoSomthing()
{
this._doohicky.DoSomthing();
}
}

Is it OK to create another object when you need a readonly copy? If so then you can use the technique in the included code. If not, I think a wrapper is probably your best bet when it comes to this.
internal class Test
{
private int _id;
public virtual int ID
{
get
{
return _id;
}
set
{
if (ReadOnly)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot set properties on a readonly instance.");
}
}
}
private string _name;
public virtual string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
if (ReadOnly)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot set properties on a readonly instance.");
}
}
}
public bool ReadOnly { get; private set; }
public Test(int id = -1, string name = null)
: this(id, name, false)
{ }
private Test(int id, string name, bool readOnly)
{
ID = id;
Name = name;
ReadOnly = readOnly;
}
public Test AsReadOnly()
{
return new Test(ID, Name, true);
}
}

I would suggest that for each main class or interface, there be three defined classes: a "readable" class, a "changeable" class, and an "immutable" class. Only the "changeable" or "immutable" classes should exist as concrete types; they should both derive from an abstract "readable" class. Code which wants to store an object secure in the knowledge that it never changes should store the "immutable" class; code that wants to edit an object should use the "changeable" class. Code which isn't going to write to something but doesn't care if it holds the same value forever can accept objects of the "readable" base type.
The readable version should include public abstract methods AsChangeable(), AsImmutable(), public virtual method AsNewChangeable(), and protected virtual method AsNewImmutable(). The "changeable" classes should define AsChangeable() to return this, and AsImmutable to return AsNewImmutable(). The "immutable" classes should define AsChangeable() to return AsNewChangeable() and AsImmutable() to return this.
The biggest difficulty with all this is that inheritance doesn't work terribly well if one tries to use class types rather than interfaces. For example, if one would like to have an EnhancedCustomer class which inherits from BasicCustomer, then ImmutableEnhancedCustomer should inherit from both ImmutableBasicCustomer and ReadableEnhancedCustomer, but .net doesn't allow such dual inheritance. One could use an interface IImmutableEnhancedCustomer rather than a class, but some people would consider an 'immutable interace' to be a bit of a smell since there's no way a module that defines an interface in such a way that outsiders can use it without also allowing outsiders to define their own implementations.

Abandon hope all ye who enter here!!!
I suspect that in the long run your code is going to be very confusing. Your class diagram suggests that all properties are editable (or not) in a given object. Or are your (I'm)mutable interfaces introducing new properties that are all immutable or not, separate from the "core"/inheriting class?
Either way I think you're going to end up with playing games with property name variations and/or hiding inherited properties
Marker Interfaces Perhaps?
Consider making all properties in your classes mutable. Then implement IMutable (I don't like the name IItem) and IImutable as a marker interfaces. That is, there is literally nothing defined in the interface body. But it allows client code to handle the objects as a IImutable reference, for example.
This implies that either (a) your client code plays nice and respects it's mutability, or (b) all your objects are wrapped by a "controller" class that enforces the given object's mutability.

Could be too late :-), but the cause "The keyword 'new' is required on property because it hides property ..." is a bug in Resharper, no problem with the compiler. See the example below:
public interface IEntityReadOnly
{
int Prop { get; }
}
public interface IEntity : IEntityReadOnly
{
int Prop { set; }
}
public class Entity : IEntity
{
public int Prop { get; set; }
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var entity = new Entity();
(entity as IEntity).Prop = 2;
Assert.AreEqual(2, (entity as IEntityReadOnly).Prop);
}
}
Same for the case without interfaces. The only limitation, you can't use auto-properties
public class User
{
public User(string userName)
{
this.userName = userName;
}
protected string userName;
public string UserName { get { return userName; } }
}
public class UserUpdatable : User
{
public UserUpdatable()
: base(null)
{
}
public string UserName { set { userName = value; } }
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var user = new UserUpdatable {UserName = "George"};
Assert.AreEqual("George", (user as User).UserName);
}
}