We Keep Coding

Invoke Function with async method delegate in C# [duplicate]

I have several methods all with the same parameter types and return values but different names and blocks. I want to pass the name of the method to run to another method that will invoke the passed method.
public int Method1(string)
{
// Do something
return myInt;
}
public int Method2(string)
{
// Do something different
return myInt;
}
public bool RunTheMethod([Method Name passed in here] myMethodName)
{
// Do stuff
int i = myMethodName("My String");
// Do more stuff
return true;
}
public bool Test()
{
return RunTheMethod(Method1);
}
This code does not work but this is what I am trying to do. What I don't understand is how to write the RunTheMethod code since I need to define the parameter.

You can use the Func delegate in .NET 3.5 as the parameter in your RunTheMethod method. The Func delegate allows you to specify a method that takes a number of parameters of a specific type and returns a single argument of a specific type. Here is an example that should work:
public class Class1
{
public int Method1(string input)
{
//... do something
return 0;
}
public int Method2(string input)
{
//... do something different
return 1;
}
public bool RunTheMethod(Func<string, int> myMethodName)
{
//... do stuff
int i = myMethodName("My String");
//... do more stuff
return true;
}
public bool Test()
{
return RunTheMethod(Method1);
}
}

You need to use a delegate. In this case all your methods take a string parameter and return an int - this is most simply represented by the Func<string, int> delegate1. So your code can become correct with as simple a change as this:
public bool RunTheMethod(Func<string, int> myMethodName)
{
// ... do stuff
int i = myMethodName("My String");
// ... do more stuff
return true;
}
Delegates have a lot more power than this, admittedly. For example, with C# you can create a delegate from a lambda expression, so you could invoke your method this way:
RunTheMethod(x => x.Length);
That will create an anonymous function like this:
// The <> in the name make it "unspeakable" - you can't refer to this method directly
// in your own code.
private static int <>_HiddenMethod_<>(string x)
{
return x.Length;
}
and then pass that delegate to the RunTheMethod method.
You can use delegates for event subscriptions, asynchronous execution, callbacks - all kinds of things. It's well worth reading up on them, particularly if you want to use LINQ. I have an article which is mostly about the differences between delegates and events, but you may find it useful anyway.
1 This is just based on the generic Func<T, TResult> delegate type in the framework; you could easily declare your own:
public delegate int MyDelegateType(string value)
and then make the parameter be of type MyDelegateType instead.

From OP's example:
public static int Method1(string mystring)
{
return 1;
}
public static int Method2(string mystring)
{
return 2;
}
You can try Action Delegate! And then call your method using
public bool RunTheMethod(Action myMethodName)
{
myMethodName(); // note: the return value got discarded
return true;
}
RunTheMethod(() => Method1("MyString1"));
Or
public static object InvokeMethod(Delegate method, params object[] args)
{
return method.DynamicInvoke(args);
}
Then simply call method
Console.WriteLine(InvokeMethod(new Func<string,int>(Method1), "MyString1"));
Console.WriteLine(InvokeMethod(new Func<string, int>(Method2), "MyString2"));

In order to provide a clear and complete answer, I'm going to start from the very beginning before showing three possible solutions.
A brief introduction
All .NET languages (such as C#, F#, and Visual Basic) run on top of the Common Language Runtime (CLR), which is a VM that runs code in the Common Intermediate Language (CIL), which is way higher level than machine code. It follows that methods aren't Assembly subroutines, nor are they values, unlike functional languages and JavaScript; rather, they're symbols that CLR recognizes. Not being values, they cannot be passed as a parameter. That's why there's a special tool in .NET. That is, delegates.
What's a delegate?
A delegate represents a handle to a method (the term handle is to be preferred over pointer as the latter would be an implementation detail). Since a method is not a value, there has to be a special class in .NET, namely Delegate, which wraps up any method. What makes it special is that, like very few classes, it needs to be implemented by the CLR itself and couldn't be simply written as a class in a .NET language.
Three different solutions, the same underlying concept
The type–unsafe way
Using the Delegate special class directly.
Example:
static void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("I was called by the Delegate special class!");
}
static void CallAnyMethod(Delegate yourMethod)
{
yourMethod.DynamicInvoke(new object[] { /*Array of arguments to pass*/ });
}
static void Main()
{
CallAnyMethod(MyMethod);
}
The drawback here is your code being type–unsafe, allowing arguments to be passed dynamically, with no constraints.
The custom way
Besides the Delegate special class, the concept of delegates spreads to custom delegates, which are declarations of methods preceded by the delegate keyword. They are type–checked the same way as “normal” method invocations, making for type-safe code.
Example:
delegate void PrintDelegate(string prompt);
static void PrintSomewhere(PrintDelegate print, string prompt)
{
print(prompt);
}
static void PrintOnConsole(string prompt)
{
Console.WriteLine(prompt);
}
static void PrintOnScreen(string prompt)
{
MessageBox.Show(prompt);
}
static void Main()
{
PrintSomewhere(PrintOnConsole, "Press a key to get a message");
Console.Read();
PrintSomewhere(PrintOnScreen, "Hello world");
}
The standard library's way
Alternatively, you can stick with a delegate that's part of the .NET Standard:
Action wraps up a parameterless void method;
Action<T1> wraps up a void method with one parameter of type T1;
Action<T1, T2> wraps up a void method with two parameters of types T1 and T2, respectively,
and so forth;
Func<TR> wraps up a parameterless function with TR return type;
Func<T1, TR> wraps up a function with TR return type and with one parameter of type T1;
Func<T1, T2, TR> wraps up a function with TR return type and with two parameters of types T1 and T2, respectively;
and so forth.
However, bear in mind that by using predefined delegates like these, parameter names won't be self-describing, nor is the name of the delegate type meaningful as to what instances are supposed to do. Therefore, refrain from using them in contexts where their purpose is not absolutely self-evident.
The latter solution is the one most people posted. I'm also mentioning it in my answer for the sake of completeness.

The solution involves Delegates, which are used to store methods to call. Define a method taking a delegate as an argument,
public static T Runner<T>(Func<T> funcToRun)
{
// Do stuff before running function as normal
return funcToRun();
}
Then pass the delegate on the call site:
var returnValue = Runner(() => GetUser(99));

You should use a Func<string, int> delegate, that represents a function taking a string argument and returning an int value:
public bool RunTheMethod(Func<string, int> myMethod)
{
// Do stuff
myMethod.Invoke("My String");
// Do stuff
return true;
}
Then invoke it this way:
public bool Test()
{
return RunTheMethod(Method1);
}

While the accepted answer is absolutely correct, I would like to provide an additional method.
I ended up here after doing my own searching for a solution to a similar question.
I am building a plugin driven framework, and as part of it I wanted people to be able to add menu items to the applications menu to a generic list without exposing an actual Menu object because the framework may deploy on other platforms that don't have Menu UI objects. Adding general info about the menu is easy enough, but allowing the plugin developer enough liberty to create the callback for when the menu is clicked was proving to be a pain. Until it dawned on me that I was trying to re-invent the wheel and normal menus call and trigger the callback from events!
So the solution, as simple as it sounds once you realize it, eluded me until now.
Just create separate classes for each of your current methods, inherited from a base if you must, and just add an event handler to each.

Here is an example Which can help you better to understand how to pass a function as a parameter.
Suppose you have Parent page and you want to open a child popup window. In the parent page there is a textbox that should be filled basing on child popup textbox.
Here you need to create a delegate.
Parent.cs
// declaration of delegates
public delegate void FillName(String FirstName);
Now create a function which will fill your textbox and function should map delegates
//parameters
public void Getname(String ThisName)
{
txtname.Text=ThisName;
}
Now on button click you need to open a Child popup window.
private void button1_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
ChildPopUp p = new ChildPopUp (Getname) //pass function name in its constructor
p.Show();
}
IN ChildPopUp constructor you need to create parameter of 'delegate type' of parent //page
ChildPopUp.cs
public Parent.FillName obj;
public PopUp(Parent.FillName objTMP)//parameter as deligate type
{
obj = objTMP;
InitializeComponent();
}
private void OKButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
obj(txtFirstName.Text);
// Getname() function will call automatically here
this.DialogResult = true;
}

If you want to pass Method as parameter, use:
using System;
public void Method1()
{
CallingMethod(CalledMethod);
}
public void CallingMethod(Action method)
{
method(); // This will call the method that has been passed as parameter
}
public void CalledMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("This method is called by passing it as a parameter");
}

If the method passed needs to take one argument and return a value, Func is the best way to go. Here is an example.
public int Method1(string)
{
// Do something
return 6;
}
public int Method2(string)
{
// Do something different
return 5;
}
public bool RunTheMethod(Func<string, int> myMethodName)
{
// Do stuff
int i = myMethodName("My String");
Console.WriteLine(i); // This is just in place of the "Do more stuff"
return true;
}
public bool Test()
{
return RunTheMethod(Method1);
}
Read the docs here
However, if your method that is passed as a parameter does not return anything, you can also use Action. It supports up to 16 paramaters for the passed method. Here is an example.
public int MethodToBeCalled(string name, int age)
{
Console.WriteLine(name + "'s age is" + age);
}
public bool RunTheMethod(Action<string, int> myMethodName)
{
// Do stuff
myMethodName("bob", 32); // Expected output: "bob's age is 32"
return true;
}
public bool Test()
{
return RunTheMethod(MethodToBeCalled);
}
Read the documentation here

Here is an example without a parameter:
http://en.csharp-online.net/CSharp_FAQ:_How_call_a_method_using_a_name_string
with params:
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread98148.html#
you basically pass in an array of objects along with name of method. you then use both with the Invoke method.
params Object[] parameters

class PersonDB
{
string[] list = { "John", "Sam", "Dave" };
public void Process(ProcessPersonDelegate f)
{
foreach(string s in list) f(s);
}
}
The second class is Client, which will use the storage class. It has a Main method that creates an instance of PersonDB, and it calls that object’s Process method with a method that is defined in the Client class.
class Client
{
static void Main()
{
PersonDB p = new PersonDB();
p.Process(PrintName);
}
static void PrintName(string name)
{
System.Console.WriteLine(name);
}
}

I don't know who might need this, but in case you're unsure how to send a lambda with a delegate, when the function using the delegate doesn't need to insert any params in there you just need the return value.
SO you can also do this:
public int DoStuff(string stuff)
{
Console.WriteLine(stuff);
}
public static bool MethodWithDelegate(Func<int> delegate)
{
///do stuff
int i = delegate();
return i!=0;
}
public static void Main(String[] args)
{
var answer = MethodWithDelegate(()=> DoStuff("On This random string that the MethodWithDelegate doesn't know about."));
}

Pass another class method as parameter [duplicate]

Suppose I have the following WCF code:
try
{
ServiceClient proxy = new ServiceClient();
proxy.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = "user";
proxy.ClientCredentials.UserName.Password = "password";
proxy.GetData(2);
if (proxy.State = CommunicationState.Opened)
{
proxy.GetData("data");
}
proxy.Close();
}
catch (FaultException ex)
{
// handle the exception
}
And since I notice that the try...catch and other logic is repetitive, not to mention that setting up a WCF call is expensive, I want to send many "methods and parameters" to this function.
In essence pass GetData(2) and GetData("data") as a method array, and have the results return either asynchronously or synchronously.
How would I accomplish this?
I suppose I could have two 'ref' objects to handle the results[] and a shared lock to the results[]. However I'm not sure how to pass "methods with parameters" as a parameter to another function.
Perhaps another way of looking at this might be an array of function pointers, to the same function with different params.
Can anyone nudge me into the right way of doing this?
More info:
I am asking this question so I can optimize this approach to handling WCF exceptions and retries but so I don't have to always open/close the client after each call.

Use delegates and pass them in a list.
The C# Func<T> delegate is used when a return value is needed.
List<Func<Data>> funcList = new List<Func<Data>>();
funcList.Add( () => GetData(2) );
// You can use any condition as you otherwise would to add to the list.
if (proxy.State = CommunicationState.Opened)
{
funcList.Add( () => GetData("data") );
}
List<Data> ProcessFuncs(List<Func<Data>> funcDatas)
{
List<Data> returnList = new List<Data>();
foreach(var func in funcDatas)
{
returnList.Add(func());
}
}
( as long as the return types are identical, this will work )
This is just an example of course; if your methods don't return anything, you can use the C# Action delegate, which just executes an action and doesn't return any value.
List<Action> actionList = new List<Action>();
actionList.Add( () => ProcessData("data")); // ProcessData is a void with no return type
actionList.Add( () => ProcessData(2));
public void ProcessActions(List<Action> actions)
{
foreach(var action in actions)
{
action();
}
}
In response to some comments:
This code compiles and is all equivalent:
class Program
{
public static string GetData(string item) { return item; }
public static string GetData(int item) { return item.ToString(); }
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string someLocalVar = "what is it?";
int someLocalValueType = 3;
Func<string> test = () =>
{
return GetData(someLocalVar);
};
Func<string> test2 = () => GetData(someLocalValueType);
someLocalValueType = 5;
List<Func<string>> testList = new List<Func<string>>();
testList.Add(() => GetData(someLocalVar));
testList.Add(() => GetData(2));
testList.Add(test);
testList.Add(test2);
someLocalVar = "something else";
foreach(var func in testList)
{
Console.WriteLine(func());
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
Result is:

I wouldn't use delegates here because then you are constrained by types and to solve that it becomes horrible and over-complicated. I would just have a callback that gives you free reign over the ServiceClient once it has been set up. I think this is a pattern that has a name but I don't know.
interface IProxyActionCallback
{
void DoProxyStuff(ServiceClient proxy);
}
void MyMethod(IProxyActionCallback callback)
{
try
{
ServiceClient proxy = new ServiceClient();
proxy.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = "user";
proxy.ClientCredentials.UserName.Password = "password";
callback.DoProxyStuff(proxy);
proxy.Close();
}
catch (FaultException ex)
{
// handle the exception
}
}
Then you call the method like:
MyMethod(new DoSpecificStuff());
Where DoSpecificStuff is a class that implements the interface and allows you to do specific calls with the proxy:
class DoSpecificStuff : IProxyActionCallback
{
public void DoProxyStuff(ServiceClient proxy)
{
proxy.GetData(2);
if (proxy.State = CommunicationState.Opened)
{
proxy.GetData("data");
}
}
}
So you'd have tons of classes that implement the interface, and they all "share" the same try-catch boiler-plate proxy stuff which is in one place.

Bellow is an example of how to make a collection of delegates and their arguments then invoke them later on without knowing the methods definition. As far as I know if you want to invoke methods with different definitions in a single general call you have to do something like this.
List<Tuple<delegate, object[]>> delegates = new List<Tuple<delegate, object[]>>();
delegates.Add(new Tuple<delegate, object[]>(new Func<Arg1Type, Arg2Type, ReturnType>(MyFunctionName), new object[] { arg1, arg2 });
foreach (Tuple<delegate, object[]> d in delegates)
{
d.Item1.DynamicInvoke(d.Item2);
}

You could use C# delegates:
A delegate is a type that represents references to methods with a
particular parameter list and return type. When you instantiate a
delegate, you can associate its instance with any method with a
compatible signature and return type. You can invoke (or call) the
method through the delegate instance. Delegates are used to pass
methods as arguments to other methods. Event handlers are nothing more
than methods that are invoked through delegates. You create a custom
method, and a class such as a windows control can call your method
when a certain event occurs. The following example shows a delegate
declaration:
More on this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173171.aspx

You can pass functions with parameters this way:
public void strategy<R, T1, T2>(Func<R, T1, T2> f);
public bool predicate(string a, string b);
strategy<bool, string, string>(predicate);
The first line declares the function strategy() accepting a function f;
That function return the type R and takes two parameters of type T1 and T2.
The second line defines a function that returns a bool and accepts two string.
The third line invokes the strategy passing it the predicate as a parameter.

Not sure to understand what you're trying to achieve, but basically if your service exposes a GetData(int) method and a GetData(string) method as well as an async proxy, you should call both asynchronously using something like:
var getData = proxy.GetDataAsync(2);
var getData2 = proxy.GetDataAsync("data");
await Task.WhenAll(getData, getData2);
// Gets the result using getData.Result...etc.

Function in C# to call a class/method as in php

I'm taking my first steps in c # & asp.net and I'm enjoying it much.
Now, I have a question...
Is there a function in C# to call a class/method as in php?
For example:
$class = array(
"foo", // class name
"bar" // method name
);
$params = array(
"one",
"two"
);
call_user_func_array($class, $params); //execute Foo->bar("one","two");

Nope, there is nothing built in to do exactly that. You could build a method that does something similar using reflection, but it seems like a solution looking for a problem.
void Main()
{
CallUserFuncArray("UserQuery+Foo", "Bar", "One", "Two");
}
// Define other methods and classes here
public class Foo
{
public static void Bar(string a, string b){}
}
public void CallUserFuncArray(string className, string methodName, params object[] args)
{
Type.GetType(className).GetMethod(methodName).Invoke(null, args);
}

As others have noted, there are multiple ways to simulate this, but no "baked-in" functionality in C#. The most flexible way is with reflection, but you can do it in a much simpler (and easier to deal with) way if you know the list of methods you'll be calling beforehand.
class Foo
{
public static string FooA(int p1, int p2)
{
return "FooA:" + p1 + p2;
}
public static string FooB(int p1, int p2) { return "FooB:" + p1 + p2; }
public static string FooC(int p1, int p2) { return "FooC:" + p1 + p2; }
}
class Bar
{
//You can use Func<int, int, object> instead of a delegate type,
//but this way is a little easier to read.
public delegate string Del(int p1, int p2);
public static string DoStuff()
{
var classes = new Dictionary<string, Dictionary<string, Del>>();
classes.Add("Foo", new Dictionary<string, Del>());
classes["Foo"].Add("FooA", Foo.FooA);
classes["Foo"].Add("FooB", Foo.FooB);
classes["Foo"].Add("FooC", Foo.FooC);
//...snip...
return classes["Foo"]["FooA"](5, 7);
}
}
Which, by the way, does work.
If you don't know which methods you want to make available this way, I suggest you reconsider whaever you're trying to do. The only reason I can think of for using strings to choose your execution path would be if you were planning to get those strings from the user. Not only is it a huge no-no to expose inner details of your application like this, but it comes dangerously close to eval-type functionality. There's a reason C# doesn't have an eval method, and it isn't because the designers forgot to put it in.

As #StriplingWarrior said, there's no built-in equivalent of call_user_func_array, but you can do something like it with Reflection.
The problem is that Reflection code can get very complicated very quickly, and can be brittle and error-prone if you're not VERY careful.
For example the following function does what you want:
public static void CallUserFuncArray(string[] func, params string[] args)
{
var type = Type.GetType(func[0]);
if (type == null)
{
throw new ArgumentException("The specified Class could not be found");
}
var method = type.GetMethod(func[1], BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public);
if (method== null)
{
throw new ArgumentException("The specified Method could not be found");
}
method.Invoke(null, args);
}
You call it like this:
var func = new [] { "Foo", "Bar" };
var args = new [] { "one", "two" };
CallUserFuncArray(func, args);
The problems though are many.
The code only works if Bar is a public static method.
There's a whole new layer of complexity if you need to call an instance method on an object.
The code will explode if the parameters in the args array aren't just right for the target method.
There's no support here for calling methods that expect anything other than string parameters. It's possible to query the type of the arguments expected by the method and convert the types before calling 'Invoke', but you're getting even more messy.
There are many more edge cases that blow out the complexity of this code even more if you need to cater for them.
To paraphrase Carl Franklin (of dotNetRocks fame):
I had a problem I needed to solve, so I used Reflection. Now I have two problems.
I you find yourself need to do this sort of thing thenyou probably need to rethink your overall design.

Noobie Delegate Fundamentals C#

I dont think I understand the point of a delegate method. All the examples I have seen do something like this:
class DelegateClass
{
private List<string> ListString = new List<string>;
delegate void DoSomethingToStringsDelegate(string s);
public base()
{
ListString.Add("string"); ....
}
void ProcessStrings(DoSomethingToStringsDelegate dstsd)
{
foreach(string s in ListString)
dstsd(s);
}
}
class AClass
{
...
void UseDelegateMethod(...)
{
DelegateClass ds = new DelegateClass();
ds.ProcessStrings(new DoSomethingToStringsDelegate(PrintStrings);
}
void PrintStrings(string s)
{
System.out.Write(s);
}
}
I dont understand why this is needed when you could simply just implement a getListStrings() and iterate through the strings yourself, doing what you needed to do, as if it was a delegate.
foreach( string s in ds.ggetListStrings() )
System.out.Write(s);
Private members reason doesnt make sense because I could just do:
global List<Strings> myListStrings = new List<Strings>();
ds.ProcessStrings(new DoSomethingToStringsDelegate(GetStrings);
void GetStrings(string s)
{
myListStrings.Add(s);
}
...and now I have the same list, as a getListStrings() would do ....
Can someone please explain? Thanks so much!

The delegate is useful because it actually acts as a placeholder for any method that takes a string as parameter and returns void.
If you are familiar with C, it is similar to how a function pointer works. In its place you can pass any method that matches the signature and return type.
For example let's say I want to implement a method that sorts a group of objects. In addition to the object list I can also pass a delegate that indicates how the sort is to be done. Since any method matching the delegate can be passed, I can then dynamically switch between different methods if I want for example decreasing or increasing sort:
delegate int comparisonDelegate(int p1, int p2);
void SortArray(int[] array, comparisonDelegate cmp)
{
// determine order according to cmp
}
int CompareDecreasing(int p1, int p2)
{
if(p1 > p2) return -1;
if(p1 < p2) return 1;
return 0;
}
int CompareIncreasing(int p1, int p2)
{
if(p1 > p2) return 1;
if(p1 < p2) return -1;
return 0;
}
Now I can call SortArray as:
SortArray(array, new comparisonDelegate(compareDecreasing));
SortArray(array, new comparisonDelegate(compareIncreasing));

I dont understand why this is needed when you could simply just implement a getListStrings() and iterate through the strings yourself, doing what you needed to do, as if it was a delegate.
The goal here is to make a function that will work on the collection, but do any operation.
This is easier to grasp by example - to see a great example of how and why this is useful, look at LINQ to Objects.
Suppose you want to see how many of your strings are greater than 4 characters - the Enumerable.Count method has an overload that takes a delegate - a Func<T,bool> predicate that can be used. This lets you specify any operation and count the elements, ie:
List<string> listOfStrings = GetListOfStrings();
int countOfStringsGreaterThanFourChars = listOfStrings.Count(s => s.Length > 4);
Here, we're passing a delegate (created via a lambda expression) that gives us our criteria. By having a Count method that takes a delegate, it works for any criteria, so we don't have to reimplement this every time we want a different condition.
Say we want to see how many strings start with "E", we could just use:
int countOfStringsStartingWithE = listOfStrings.Count(s => s.StartsWith("E"));
Again, we only have to write the code that's relevant to our specific need, not duplicate all of the boilerplate code that would be required to loop through our collection and count the items...

Using a delegate in your illustration allows you to change out the implementation of the method.
A better example is that of a Comparer method. I won't get into the IComparer interface, but suffice it to say that, using a delegate, you would be able to modify a sort method's behavior by passing it a delegate to a comparison function.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.collections.icomparer.aspx

For one, it allows you to inject different behaviors with the same method signature. In one case you might want to simply add to your list. In another case you might want to add to the list and write to a log file, or whatever else you might want to do in a DoSomethingToStringsDelegate.

Think of it in terms of events. Say you have a class that does some processing on a list of items, and for each item, someone consuming your class may want to be notified that an item has been processed (maybe update a progress bar, or update some other part of the system, whatever). Let's put delegates aside for a second, and let's see how we can implement this using interfaces:
public class MyClassThatDoesSomething
{
private List<string> list = new List<string>();
public void ProcessList()
{
foreach(var item in list)
{
ProcessItem(item);
//how do we notify someone here??
}
}
private void ProcessItem(string item){}
}
Now say someone is consuming this class:
var mc = new MyClassThatDoesSomething();
mc.ProcessList(); //how do I know when each one has been processed?
So solve this problem, let's create an interface:
public interface IItemProcessed
{
void ItemProcessed(string item);
}
We can now refactor our original class:
public class MyClassThatDoesSomething
{
private List<string> list = new List<string>();
public void ProcessList()
{
foreach(var item in list)
{
ProcessItem(item);
//how do we notify someone here??
if(this.Listener != null)
{
this.Listener.ItemProcessed(item);
}
}
}
private void ProcessItem(string item){}
public IItemProcessed Listener {get;set;}
}
and the consumer of your class can now do this:
public class ProcessListener : IItemProcessed
{
public void ItemProcessed(string item)
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
//update progress bar, whatever
}
}
var mc = new MyClassThatDoesSomething();
mc.Listener = new ProcessListener();
mc.ProcessList();
Now that you understand that, you can think of delegates as mini interfaces, and you can then change your original class to this:
public class MyClassThatDoesSomething
{
private List<string> list = new List<string>();
public void ProcessList()
{
foreach(var item in list)
{
ProcessItem(item);
//how do we notify someone here??
if(this.Callback != null)
{
this.Callback(item);
}
}
}
private void ProcessItem(string item){}
public Action<string> Callback {get;set;}
}
and the consumer:
var mc = new MyClassThatDoesSomething();
mc.Listener = s =>
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
//update progress bar, whatever
}
mc.ProcessList();
To summarize, you can think of delegates as a way to provide outsiders a simple "hook" into your code to either let them provide small pieces of logic (think of Linq and filtering a collection) or for callbacks/events like I've demonstrated above.

Callbacks in C#

I want to have a library that will have a function in it that accepts an object for it's parameter.
With this object I want to be able to call a specified function when X is finished. The function that will be called is to be specified by the caller, and X will be done and monitored by the library.
How can I do this?
For reference I'm using C# and .NET 3.5

Two options for you:
Have the function accept a delegate (Action for a callback that doesn't return anything, Func for one that does) and use an anonymous delegate or Lambda Expression when calling it.
Use an interface
Using a delegate/lambda
public static void DoWork(Action processAction)
{
// do work
if (processAction != null)
processAction();
}
public static void Main()
{
// using anonymous delegate
DoWork(delegate() { Console.WriteLine("Completed"); });
// using Lambda
DoWork(() => Console.WriteLine("Completed"));
}
If your callback needs to have something passed to it, you can use a type parameter on Action:
public static void DoWork(Action<string> processAction)
{
// do work
if (processAction != null)
processAction("this is the string");
}
public static void Main()
{
// using anonymous delegate
DoWork(delegate(string str) { Console.WriteLine(str); });
// using Lambda
DoWork((str) => Console.WriteLine(str));
}
If it needs multiple arguments, you can add more type parameters to Action. If you need a return type, as mentioned use Func and make the return type the last type parameter (Func<string, int> is a function accepting a string and returning an int.)
More about delegates here.
Using an interface
public interface IObjectWithX
{
void X();
}
public class MyObjectWithX : IObjectWithX
{
public void X()
{
// do something
}
}
public class ActionClass
{
public static void DoWork(IObjectWithX handlerObject)
{
// do work
handlerObject.X();
}
}
public static void Main()
{
var obj = new MyObjectWithX()
ActionClass.DoWork(obj);
}

Sounds like a perfect recipe for delegates - in particular, callbacks with delegates are exactly how this is handled in the asynchronous pattern in .NET.
The caller would usually pass you some state and a delegate, and you store both of them in whatever context you've got, then call the delegate passing it the state and whatever result you might have.
You could either make the state just object or potentially use a generic delegate and take state of the appropriate type, e.g.
public delegate void Callback<T>(T state, OperationResult result)
Then:
public void DoSomeOperation(int otherParameterForWhateverReason,
Callback<T> callback, T state)
As you're using .NET 3.5 you might want to use the existing Func<...> and Action<...>
delegate types, but you may find it makes it clearer to declare your own. (The name may make it clearer what you're using it for.)

The object in question will need to implement an interface provided by you. Take the interface as a parameter, and then you can call any method that the interface exposes. Otherwise you have no way of knowing what the object is capable of. That, or you could take a delegate as a parameter and call that.

Is there a reason not to have your library provide a public event to be fired when the operation is complete? Then the caller could just register to handle the event and you don't have to worry about passing around objects or delegates.
The object implementing an interface you have provided would work, but it seems to be more the Java approach than the .NET approach. Events seem a bit cleaner to me.

You can use System.Action available in C#.NET for callback functions. Please check this sample example:
//Say you are calling some FUNC1 that has the tight while loop and you need to
//get updates on what percentage the updates have been done.
private void ExecuteUpdates()
{
Func1(Info => { lblUpdInfo.Text = Info; });
}
//Now Func1 would keep calling back the Action specified in the argument
//This System.Action can be returned for any type by passing the Type as the template.
//This example is returning string.
private void Func1(System.Action<string> UpdateInfo)
{
int nCount = 0;
while (nCount < 100)
{
nCount++;
if (UpdateInfo != null) UpdateInfo("Counter: " + nCount.ToString());
//System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}