We Keep Coding

dynamic in c# without IDynamicMetaObject?

An object can provide its binding semantics by implementing
IDynamicMetaObject Provider—or more easily by subclassing
DynamicObject, which provides a default implementation of this
interface.
source
I never implemented this interface nor class and always been able to execute things dynamically:
public class aa
{
public void bbb()
{ }
}
dynamic a = new aa().bbb();
so what do they mean by this quote ?
im trying to understand when should i need to use IDynamicMetaObject or the DynamicObject inheritance

The dynamic keyword causes references to an object to be late-bound and only resolved at runtime. Usually, the reason for this is because you are using an IDynamicMetaObjectProvider implementer, which allows your code to decide how to treat the run-time property resolution. That is, you may want to add and remove properties at runtime (typically implemented as a dictionary, like ExpandoObject).
What your example code is doing is just preventing compile-type type checking. In fact it's worse than doing nothing, because if you wrote code that accessed a nonexistent property or method of your class, it would still compile, but of course crash at runtime. I can't think of many good reasons to refer to concrete classes with dynamic (expect for squishy typecasting or duck-typing, but we usually use interfaces for stuff like this in C#!)
Example implementation of a dynamic object that inherits DynamicObject from one of my own projects:
https://github.com/jamietre/IQObjectMapper/blob/master/source/IQObjectMapper/IQDynamicObject.cs
(It makes one call to a factory method that returns a new dictionary with options, all you need to do to make this non-dependent is change the constructor from:
InnerDict = ObjectMapper.MapperCache.GetDictionary<object>(Options);
to:
InnerDict = new Dictionary<string,object>();
and get rid of a couple conditons that check options

I hate to give "pithy" answers like this, because its not very imformative, but this really is a case of "if you needed it, you would know."
It is very rare that you would need to implement a dynamic object in an application, or even most library code. The interface is meant for people implementing classes that can only be used as dynamic objects; for example, if you wanted to implement Javascript-like behavior on your object. You can call any property or method you want on such an object, and it will compile. It's up to your implementation at run-time to figure out whether a given call works or not.
A totally pointless but descriptive example would be a class that decides which properties are valid based on the day of the week:
public class WeekendObject : DynamicObject
{
Dictionary<string, object> propertybag = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result)
{
if (DateTime.Now.DayOfWeek == DayOfWeek.Sunday)
{
if (name.StartsWith("Sunday"))
{
return propertybag.TryGetValue(name, out result);
}
}
else
{
if (!name.StartsWith("Sunday"))
{
return propertybag.TryGetValue(name, out result);
}
}
}
public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value)
{
if (DateTime.Now.DayOfWeek == DayOfWeek.Sunday)
{
if (name.StartsWith("Sunday"))
{
propertybag[binder.Name.ToLower()] = value;
return true;
}
}
else
{
if (!name.StartsWith("Sunday"))
{
propertybag[binder.Name.ToLower()] = value;
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}

Downcast from Generic without losing expressiveness

I've something along this lines:
public class Something
{
private IDictionary<object,Activity> fCases;
public IDictionary<object,Activity> Cases
{
get { return fCases; }
set { fCases = value; }
}
}
public sealed class Something<T> : Something
{
private IDictionary<T,Activity> fCases;
public override IDictionary<T,Activity> Cases
{
get { return fCases; }
set { fCases = value; }
}
}
Note: override is not accepted on this case
Due to heavy Reflection usage there are situations where I've to downcast from Something<T> to Something but, I guess because Cases property is hidden, I'm losing Cases data.
How can I circumvent this situation? I've tried to use where T:object but that isn't accepted also.
EDIT:
This is an example of why I need inheritance:
if (someVar is Something) {
if (someVar.GetType().IsGenericType)
{
// Construct AnotherObject<T> depending on the Something<T>'s generic argument
Type typeArg = someVar.GetType().GetGenericArguments()[0],
genericDefinition = typeof(AnotherObject<>),
typeToConstruct = genericDefinition.makeGenericType(typeArgs);
object newAnotherObject = Activator.CreateInstance(typeToConstruct);
// Pass Something 'Cases' property to AnotherObject<T>
constructedType.InvokeMember(
"Cases",
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.SetProperty,
null,
newActivity,
new Object[] { someVar.Cases });
}
}
But, because 'Cases' is hidden, it will be always null. Without inheritance I would have to write a BIG if-then-else with all the possible generic arguments. And, believe me, I do really have to use someVar is Something and Reflection to construct all this objects. This is a big generic API being converted to other big generic API and so they should not known each other and the conversion should be as transparent as possible.

You won't be able to override it like that, and for good reason.
Imagine:
Something x = new Something<string>();
Button key = new Button();
x.Cases[key] = new Activity();
If your override worked, that would be trying to store a Button reference as a key in Dictionary<string, Activity>. That would be a Bad Thing.
Perhaps inheritance isn't actually appropriate in this case? If you could explain more about what you're trying to achieve, that would help. Perhaps you don't really need the dictionary as a property? Maybe just a method to fetch by key?

This is flat-out not going to work because the IDictionary<TKey, TValue> interface is invariant. An IDictionary<object, Activity> cannot be treated as an IDictionary<T, Activity>.
What you could do, rather than exposing an entire IDictionary<T, Activity> in your derived class, is simply delegate the calls you want to expose, like this:
public class Something
{
protected IDictionary<object, Activity> Cases { get; set; }
}
public sealed class Something<T> : Something
{
public Activity GetCase(T key)
{
return Cases[key];
}
public void AddCase(T key, Activity case)
{
Cases.Add(key, case);
}
// etc. etc.
}
Alternatively, you could also define your own contravariant interface, something like:
interface IKeyedCollection<in TKey, TValue>
{
TValue this[TKey key] { get; set; }
void Add(TKey key, TValue value);
}
For the above interface, an IKeyedCollection<object, Activity> could act as an IKeyedCollection<T, Activity> because every T is an object.

If you attempt to expose incompatible types at the different levels you're going to keep running into problems because at the end of the day you'll end up having to maintain 2 separate objects (or 1 custom object with 2 interfaces it can't completely satisfy).
These types are incompatible because there are values which can be added to IDictionary<object, Activity> which cannot be added to every instantiation of IDictionary<T, Activity>. Imagine for instance T is instatiated as string and the developer uses a int key elsewhere via Something. This creates a real problem for Something<string> implementations.
The way I would approach this is to change the base type Something to not expose a concrete type but instead to expose the relevant APIs.
public abstract class Something {
public abstract IEnumerable<KeyValuePair> GetElements();
public abstract bool TryGetValue(object key, out Activity value);
}
This gives Something<T> the flexbility it needs to properly sub-class Something and be very expressive about the types it wants to expose
public sealed class Something<T> : Something {
private IDictionary<T,Activity> fCases;
public override IDictionary<T,Activity> Cases
{
get { return fCases; }
set { fCases = value; }
}
public override IEnumerable<KeyValuPair<object, Activity>> GetElements() {
foreach (var cur in fCases) {
yield return new KeyValuePair<object, Activity>(cur.Key, cur.Value);
}
}
public override bool TryGetValue(object key, out Activity activity) {
try {
T typedKey = (T)key;
return fCases.TryGetValue(typedKey, out activity);
} catch (InvalidCastException) {
activity = null;
return false;
}
}
}
}

During heavy reflection usage I also had the need to 'upcast' from generic types. I knew certain calls would be compatible, but I didn't know the types at compile time. If you look at it this way, it is not really 'upcasting' a generic type, but rather, allowing to use generics during reflection by generating the correct downcasts.
To this end I created a helper method to create delegates along the lines of Delegate.CreateDelegate, but allowing to create a less generic delegate. Downcasts are generated where necessary. I explain it in detail on my blog.
MethodInfo methodToCall = typeof( string ).GetMethod( "Compare" );
Func<object, object, int> unknownArgument
= DelegateHelper.CreateDowncastingDelegate<Func<object, object, int>>(
null, methodToCall );
unknownArgument( "test", "test" ); // Will return 0.
unknownArgument( "test", 1 ); // Will compile, but throw InvalidCastException.
A bit later I had a need to create entire less generic wrapper classes for generic classes, so that all method calls would immediately become available as less generic calls during reflection. This might or might not be useful in your scenario as well. For this purpose I created a (not as thoroughly tested) method which allows to generate this wrapper class at runtime using emit. It is available in my open source library. I haven't written about this yet, so when interested you'll just have to try it out (and possibly see it fail since it's still quite new).

C# Using Activator.CreateInstance

I asked a question yesterday regarding using either reflection or Strategy Pattern for dynamically calling methods.
However, since then I have decided to change the methods into individual classes that implement a common interface. The reason being, each class, whilst bearing some similarities also perform certain methods unique to that class.
I had been using a strategy as such:
switch (method)
{
case "Pivot":
return new Pivot(originalData);
case "GroupBy":
return new GroupBy(originalData);
case "Standard deviation":
return new StandardDeviation(originalData);
case "% phospho PRAS Protein":
return new PhosphoPRASPercentage(originalData);
case "AveragePPPperTreatment":
return new AveragePPPperTreatment(originalData);
case "AvgPPPNControl":
return new AvgPPPNControl(originalData);
case "PercentageInhibition":
return new PercentageInhibition(originalData);
default:
throw new Exception("ERROR: Method " + method + " does not exist.");
}
However, as the number of potential classes grow, I will need to keep adding new ones, thus breaking the closed for modification rule.
Instead, I have used a solution as such:
var test = Activator.CreateInstance(null, "MBDDXDataViews."+ _class);
ICalculation instance = (ICalculation)test.Unwrap();
return instance;
Effectively, the _class parameter is the name of the class passed in at runtime.
Is this a common way to do this, will there be any performance issues with this?
I am fairly new to reflection, so your advice would be welcome.

When using reflection you should ask yourself a couple of questions first, because you may end up in an over-the-top complex solution that's hard to maintain:
Is there a way to solve the problem using genericity or class/interface inheritance?
Can I solve the problem using dynamic invocations (only .NET 4.0 and above)?
Is performance important, i.e. will my reflected method or instantiation call be called once, twice or a million times?
Can I combine technologies to get to a smart but workable/understandable solution?
Am I ok with losing compile time type safety?
Genericity / dynamic
From your description I assume you do not know the types at compile time, you only know they share the interface ICalculation. If this is correct, then number (1) and (2) above are likely not possible in your scenario.
Performance
This is an important question to ask. The overhead of using reflection can impede a more than 400-fold penalty: that slows down even a moderate amount of calls.
The resolution is relatively easy: instead of using Activator.CreateInstance, use a factory method (you already have that), look up the MethodInfo create a delegate, cache it and use the delegate from then on. This yields only a penalty on the first invocation, subsequent invocations have near-native performance.
Combine technologies
A lot is possible here, but I'd really need to know more of your situation to assist in this direction. Often, I end up combining dynamic with generics, with cached reflection. When using information hiding (as is normal in OOP), you may end up with a fast, stable and still well-extensible solution.
Losing compile time type safety
Of the five questions, this is perhaps the most important one to worry about. It is very important to create your own exceptions that give clear information about reflection mistakes. That means: every call to a method, constructor or property based on an input string or otherwise unchecked information must be wrapped in a try/catch. Catch only specific exceptions (as always, I mean: never catch Exception itself).
Focus on TargetException (method does not exist), TargetInvocationException (method exists, but rose an exc. when invoked), TargetParameterCountException, MethodAccessException (not the right privileges, happens a lot in ASP.NET), InvalidOperationException (happens with generic types). You don't always need to try to catch all of them, it depends on the expected input and expected target objects.
To sum it up
Get rid of your Activator.CreateInstance and use MethodInfo to find the factory-create method, and use Delegate.CreateDelegate to create and cache the delegate. Simply store it in a static Dictionary where the key is equal to the class-string in your example code. Below is a quick but not-so-dirty way of doing this safely and without losing too much type safety.
Sample code
public class TestDynamicFactory
{
// static storage
private static Dictionary<string, Func<ICalculate>> InstanceCreateCache = new Dictionary<string, Func<ICalculate>>();
// how to invoke it
static int Main()
{
// invoke it, this is lightning fast and the first-time cache will be arranged
// also, no need to give the full method anymore, just the classname, as we
// use an interface for the rest. Almost full type safety!
ICalculate instanceOfCalculator = this.CreateCachableICalculate("RandomNumber");
int result = instanceOfCalculator.ExecuteCalculation();
}
// searches for the class, initiates it (calls factory method) and returns the instance
// TODO: add a lot of error handling!
ICalculate CreateCachableICalculate(string className)
{
if(!InstanceCreateCache.ContainsKey(className))
{
// get the type (several ways exist, this is an eays one)
Type type = TypeDelegator.GetType("TestDynamicFactory." + className);
// NOTE: this can be tempting, but do NOT use the following, because you cannot
// create a delegate from a ctor and will loose many performance benefits
//ConstructorInfo constructorInfo = type.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes);
// works with public instance/static methods
MethodInfo mi = type.GetMethod("Create");
// the "magic", turn it into a delegate
var createInstanceDelegate = (Func<ICalculate>) Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof (Func<ICalculate>), mi);
// store for future reference
InstanceCreateCache.Add(className, createInstanceDelegate);
}
return InstanceCreateCache[className].Invoke();
}
}
// example of your ICalculate interface
public interface ICalculate
{
void Initialize();
int ExecuteCalculation();
}
// example of an ICalculate class
public class RandomNumber : ICalculate
{
private static Random _random;
public static RandomNumber Create()
{
var random = new RandomNumber();
random.Initialize();
return random;
}
public void Initialize()
{
_random = new Random(DateTime.Now.Millisecond);
}
public int ExecuteCalculation()
{
return _random.Next();
}
}

I suggest you give your factory implementation a method RegisterImplementation. So every new class is just a call to that method and you are not changing your factories code.
UPDATE:
What I mean is something like this:
Create an interface that defines a calculation. According to your code, you already did this. For the sake of being complete, I am going to use the following interface in the rest of my answer:
public interface ICalculation
{
void Initialize(string originalData);
void DoWork();
}
Your factory will look something like this:
public class CalculationFactory
{
private readonly Dictionary<string, Func<string, ICalculation>> _calculations =
new Dictionary<string, Func<string, ICalculation>>();
public void RegisterCalculation<T>(string method)
where T : ICalculation, new()
{
_calculations.Add(method, originalData =>
{
var calculation = new T();
calculation.Initialize(originalData);
return calculation;
});
}
public ICalculation CreateInstance(string method, string originalData)
{
return _calculations[method](originalData);
}
}
This simple factory class is lacking error checking for the reason of simplicity.
UPDATE 2:
You would initialize it like this somewhere in your applications initialization routine:
CalculationFactory _factory = new CalculationFactory();
public void RegisterCalculations()
{
_factory.RegisterCalculation<Pivot>("Pivot");
_factory.RegisterCalculation<GroupBy>("GroupBy");
_factory.RegisterCalculation<StandardDeviation>("Standard deviation");
_factory.RegisterCalculation<PhosphoPRASPercentage>("% phospho PRAS Protein");
_factory.RegisterCalculation<AveragePPPperTreatment>("AveragePPPperTreatment");
_factory.RegisterCalculation<AvgPPPNControl>("AvgPPPNControl");
_factory.RegisterCalculation<PercentageInhibition>("PercentageInhibition");
}

Just as an example how to add initialization in the constructor:
Something similar to: Activator.CreateInstance(Type.GetType("ConsoleApplication1.Operation1"), initializationData);
but written with Linq Expression, part of code is taken here:
public class Operation1
{
public Operation1(object data)
{
}
}
public class Operation2
{
public Operation2(object data)
{
}
}
public class ActivatorsStorage
{
public delegate object ObjectActivator(params object[] args);
private readonly Dictionary<string, ObjectActivator> activators = new Dictionary<string,ObjectActivator>();
private ObjectActivator CreateActivator(ConstructorInfo ctor)
{
Type type = ctor.DeclaringType;
ParameterInfo[] paramsInfo = ctor.GetParameters();
ParameterExpression param = Expression.Parameter(typeof(object[]), "args");
Expression[] argsExp = new Expression[paramsInfo.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < paramsInfo.Length; i++)
{
Expression index = Expression.Constant(i);
Type paramType = paramsInfo[i].ParameterType;
Expression paramAccessorExp = Expression.ArrayIndex(param, index);
Expression paramCastExp = Expression.Convert(paramAccessorExp, paramType);
argsExp[i] = paramCastExp;
}
NewExpression newExp = Expression.New(ctor, argsExp);
LambdaExpression lambda = Expression.Lambda(typeof(ObjectActivator), newExp, param);
return (ObjectActivator)lambda.Compile();
}
private ObjectActivator CreateActivator(string className)
{
Type type = Type.GetType(className);
if (type == null)
throw new ArgumentException("Incorrect class name", "className");
// Get contructor with one parameter
ConstructorInfo ctor = type.GetConstructors()
.SingleOrDefault(w => w.GetParameters().Length == 1
&& w.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType == typeof(object));
if (ctor == null)
throw new Exception("There is no any constructor with 1 object parameter.");
return CreateActivator(ctor);
}
public ObjectActivator GetActivator(string className)
{
ObjectActivator activator;
if (activators.TryGetValue(className, out activator))
{
return activator;
}
activator = CreateActivator(className);
activators[className] = activator;
return activator;
}
}
The usage is following:
ActivatorsStorage ast = new ActivatorsStorage();
var a = ast.GetActivator("ConsoleApplication1.Operation1")(initializationData);
var b = ast.GetActivator("ConsoleApplication1.Operation2")(initializationData);
The same can be implemented with DynamicMethods.
Also, the classes are not required to be inherited from the same interface or base class.
Thanks, Vitaliy

One strategy that I use in cases like this is to flag my various implementations with a special attribute to indicate its key, and scan the active assemblies for types with that key:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)]
public class OperationAttribute : System.Attribute
{
public OperationAttribute(string opKey)
{
_opKey = opKey;
}
private string _opKey;
public string OpKey {get {return _opKey;}}
}
[Operation("Standard deviation")]
public class StandardDeviation : IOperation
{
public void Initialize(object originalData)
{
//...
}
}
public interface IOperation
{
void Initialize(object originalData);
}
public class OperationFactory
{
static OperationFactory()
{
_opTypesByKey =
(from a in AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies()
from t in a.GetTypes()
let att = t.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(OperationAttribute), false).FirstOrDefault()
where att != null
select new { ((OperationAttribute)att).OpKey, t})
.ToDictionary(e => e.OpKey, e => e.t);
}
private static IDictionary<string, Type> _opTypesByKey;
public IOperation GetOperation(string opKey, object originalData)
{
var op = (IOperation)Activator.CreateInstance(_opTypesByKey[opKey]);
op.Initialize(originalData);
return op;
}
}
That way, just by creating a new class with a new key string, you can automatically "plug in" to the factory, without having to modify the factory code at all.
You'll also notice that rather than depending on each implementation to provide a specific constructor, I've created an Initialize method on the interface I expect the classes to implement. As long as they implement the interface, I'll be able to send the "originalData" to them without any reflection weirdness.
I'd also suggest using a dependency injection framework like Ninject instead of using Activator.CreateInstance. That way, your operation implementations can use constructor injection for their various dependencies.

Essentially, it sounds like you want the factory pattern. In this situation, you define a mapping of input to output types and then instantiate the type at runtime like you are doing.
Example:
You have X number of classes, and they all share a common interface of IDoSomething.
public interface IDoSomething
{
void DoSomething();
}
public class Foo : IDoSomething
{
public void DoSomething()
{
// Does Something specific to Foo
}
}
public class Bar : IDoSomething
{
public void DoSomething()
{
// Does something specific to Bar
}
}
public class MyClassFactory
{
private static Dictionary<string, Type> _mapping = new Dictionary<string, Type>();
static MyClassFactory()
{
_mapping.Add("Foo", typeof(Foo));
_mapping.Add("Bar", typeof(Bar));
}
public static void AddMapping(string query, Type concreteType)
{
// Omitting key checking code, etc. Basically, you can register new types at runtime as well.
_mapping.Add(query, concreteType);
}
public IDoSomething GetMySomething(string desiredThing)
{
if(!_mapping.ContainsKey(desiredThing))
throw new ApplicationException("No mapping is defined for: " + desiredThing);
return Activator.CreateInstance(_mapping[desiredThing]) as IDoSomething;
}
}

There's no error checking here. Are you absolutely sure that _class will resolve to a valid class? Are you controlling all the possible values or does this string somehow get populated by an end-user?
Reflection is generally most costly than avoiding it. Performance issues are proportionate to the number of objects you plan to instantiate this way.
Before you run off and use a dependency injection framework read the criticisms of it. =)

Is the StaticFactory in codecampserver a well known pattern?

UPDATE: this is a duplicate of
Is the StaticFactory in codecampserver a well known pattern?

Edit: Please note that this answer was given before the question was completely changed over in an edit. Because of that, it now refers to things that were only present in the question as originally stated. I beg your pardon for all the "dangling pointers". :-)
Short answer:
With the code you've posted, I don't see an alternative to casting to IFoo<T>. If you don't, the compiler will give a warning (on my machine, at least).
More elaborate answer:
Does your code actually have to be that way? More specifically, do you need the cast in question in the first place?
I assume you are going to call your factory method more or less like this:
var stringFoo = FooFactory.CreateFoo<string>();
You have to provide the template parameter (string in this case) explicitly because it cannot be derived from any method argument (in this case because there aren't actually any at all). Obviously, the factory method will return an IFoo<string>.
Now, since you have to explicitly specify the type at run-time, you could just as well write:
var stringFoo = StringFoo.Create();
and therefore have a factory method inside StringFoo, like this, that unconditionally does the obvious:
public class StringFoo : IFoo<string>
{
...
public static StringFoo Create() // or alternatively, return an IFoo<string>
{
return new StringFoo();
}
}
By applying this pattern to other IFoo<T> implementations too, this will save you the if chain or switch block inside FooFactory.CreateFoo<T>, make your code easier, and get rid of the necessity to cast (which you are concerned about).
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that factory methods supporting more than one object type are useful in some cases; but it seems in your case it causes more trouble than it's worth.
P.S.: You might find one aspect of some IoC containers interesting. They usually need to be configured, and this encompasses a process where you register concrete types (i.e. implementation classes) for abstract interfaces; for example (here using Autofac):
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<StringFoo>().As<IFoo<string>>();
Then later, you can request an object instance of an abstract type:
using (var container = builder.Build())
{
var stringFoo = container.Resolve<IFoo<string>>();
...
}
The Resolve method is the interesting part. You provide it with an abstract type, and using the registered types, it will return a concrete object of type StringFoo. Look into it, if it doesn't sound like overkill to you! :-)

Can you describe the problem you are solving with this mechanism? There is most likely a clearer way to approach it.
Edit
And yes, the code smells. You have left room open for any type, except you then constrain it back to a single type, and generate a run-time exception. Why have a type parameter in that case?

You could try something like this...
public static class FooFactory
{
private static readonly Dictionary<Type, Type> FooTypesLookup;
static FooFactory()
{
FooTypesLookup = (from type in typeof(FooFactory).Assembly.GetExportedTypes()
let fooInterface =
type.GetInterfaces().FirstOrDefault(
x => x.IsGenericType && x.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(IFoo<>))
where fooInterface != null
let firstTypeArgument = fooInterface.GetGenericArguments().First()
select new { Type = type, TypeArgument = firstTypeArgument })
.ToDictionary(x => x.TypeArgument, x => x.Type);
}
public static IFoo<T> CreateFoo<T>()
{
var genericArgumentType = typeof(T);
Type closedFooType;
return FooTypesLookup.TryGetValue(genericArgumentType, out closedFooType)
? (IFoo<T>) Activator.CreateInstance(closedFooType)
: null;
}
}
Or better yet, introduce your favorite IoC container (Windsor, structure map, etc) and register all types that implement IFoo in there and then resolve them when needed in place of the Activator.CreateInstance call.

C#: cast to generic interface with base type

Here's the code:
public interface IValidator<T>
{
bool IsValid(T obj);
}
public class OrderValidator: IValidator<Order>
{
// ...
}
public class BaseEntity
{
}
public class Order: BaseEntity
{
}
The problem is that I can't do:
var validator = new OrderValidator();
// this line throws because type can't be converted
var baseValidator = (IValidator<BaseEntity>)validator;
// all this is because I need a list with IValidator<Order>, IValidator<BaseOrder>, etc.
IList<IValidator<BaseEntity>> allValidators = ...
How do I get and store a list of all implementations of IValidator<T> for base T - say, BaseEntity? Currently I do non-generic IValidator that accepts "object obj" but it is not good and not type-safe.
The funny stuff is that C# allows to compile:
var test = (IValidator<BaseEntity>)new OrderValidator();
but fails at runtime with
Unable to cast object of type 'OrderValidator' to type 'IValidator`1[Orders.Core.BaseEntity]'
This is the same exception that Windsor gives me (I tried both Windsor and manual types lookup, this issue is really not related to this, only to the interfaces casting).
Thanks to Heinzi, I see now why I can't cast - because IValidator for Order expects Order as generic type. But how do I return a list of IValidator for different types? The reason is that the BaseEntity takes its real type and gathers all validators - for all types from GetType() to the object. I'd really like to have a generic GetValidators() and then operate on it.

Maybe it helps you if I explain why this cast is forbidden: Assume that you have the following function
void myFunc(IValidator<BaseEntity> myValidator) {
myValidator.IsValid(new BaseEntity());
}
This code would compile correctly. Nevertheless, if you passed an OrderValidator to this function, you would get a run-time exception, because OrderValidator.IsValid expects an Order, not a BaseEntity. Type safety would no longer be maintained if your cast were allowed.
EDIT: C# 4 allows for generic co- and contravariance, but this would not help in your case, since you use T as an input parameter. Thus, only casting to an IValidator<SomeSubtypeOfOrder> could be done in a type-safe way.
So, to be clear, you cannot cast OrderValidator to IValidator<BaseEntity> because your OrderValidator can only validate orders, not all kinds of BaseEntities. This, however, is what would be expected of an IValidator<BaseEntity>.

The cast doesn't work because IValidator<Order> and IValidator<BaseEntity> are totally unrelated types. IValidator<Order> is not a subtype of IValidator<BaseEntity>, so they can't be cast.
C# does support multiple interface inheritance, so the simplest way to handle this is to make your order validator inherit from an interface for both validator types, that way it you will be able to cast it to either interface as required. Obviously this means you will have to implement both interfaces and specify how to handle the base when a BaseEntity provided doesn't match the type the validator is for.
Something like this:
public class OrderValidator : IValidator<Order>, IValidator<BaseEntity>
{
public bool IsValid(Order obj)
{
// do validation
// ...
return true;
}
public bool IsValid(BaseEntity obj)
{
Order orderToValidate = obj as Order;
if (orderToValidate != null)
{
return IsValid(orderToValidate);
}
else
{
// Eiter do this:
throw new InvalidOperationException("This is an order validator so you can't validate objects that aren't orders");
// Or this:
return false;
// Depending on what it is you are trying to achive.
}
}
}
This relates to what Heinzi says about not being able to cast because an IValidator<BaseEntity> needs to be able to validate BaseEntities, which your current OrderValidator can't do. By adding this multiple interface you explicitly define the behaviour for validating BaseEntities (by either explicitly ignoring it or causing an exception) so the cast becomes possible.

While this won't answer you directly, I'd recommend taking a look at the source code for StructureMap, they do alot of work with open generic types. Actually might even want to use StructureMap to handle caching of your validators, this is exactly what i do.
ForRequestedType(typeof (ValidationBase<>)).CacheBy(InstanceScope.Singleton);
Scan(assemblies =>
{
assemblies.TheCallingAssembly();
assemblies.AddAllTypesOf(typeof(IValidation<>));
});
Then I have a factory class to do the actual validation
public static class ValidationFactory
{
public static Result Validate<T>(T obj)
{
try
{
var validator = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IValidator<T>>();
return validator.Validate(obj);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
...
}
}
}
Edit: I wrote a big blog post on generic validation using IoC, if you take a look at it since you said you already use Spring, I bet you could adapt my work to solve your problem: Creating a generic validation framework