I am not sure the best approach to this problem, be it through reflection, redesigning my classes altogether, or doing something simple.
Basically I have a base class, and I can have any number of subclasses which inherit from it. Let's call the base class Shape and the subclasses CircleShape, RectangleShape, etc.
The base class is never itself instantiated, only the subclasses. Some are never instatiated, some are instantiated many times throughout the life of the program.
Sometimes I need information specific to a subclass before I instantiate it. Right now I use an enum to differentiate all subclass types. And I instantiate each subclass based on the enum in a switch statement, like this:
switch (shapeType)
{
case CircleShape:
shape = new CircleShape();
case SquareShape:
shape = new RectangleShape();
}
But say instead of having to use this kind of hardcoded switch statement, I wanted to enumerate through all the subclasses. Is there a way to automatically retrieve a list of subclasses and access their STATIC members for info about them (before instantiating them)? Or is it easier to manually instantiate each class once and add them to an array so an I enumerate through them (but not tie those instances to any actual data).
Or should I do something completely different?
You can use attributes to define metadata on your classes and then use reflection to read this metadata at runtime to decide what you want to do with this class without having to instantiate it.
Here's some information on using attributes (you can create your own custom attributes too) using attributes in C#
Here's a quick sample of what this would look like:
Class Defenition:
// ********* assign the attributes to the class ********
[BugFixAttribute(121,"Jesse Liberty","01/03/05")]
[BugFixAttribute(107,"Jesse Liberty","01/04/05", Comment="Fixed off by one errors")]
public class MyMath
{
...
Using Reflection to read the attributes:
// get the member information and use it to retrieve the custom attributes
System.Reflection.MemberInfo inf = typeof(MyMath);
object[] attributes;
attributes = inf.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(BugFixAttribute), false);
// iterate through the attributes, retrieving the properties
foreach(Object attribute in attributes)
{
BugFixAttribute bfa = (BugFixAttribute) attribute;
Console.WriteLine("\nBugID: {0}", bfa.BugID);
Console.WriteLine("Programmer: {0}", bfa.Programmer);
Console.WriteLine("Date: {0}", bfa.Date);
Console.WriteLine("Comment: {0}", bfa.Comment);
}
NOTE: Be careful with using reflection too heavily on large numbers of iterations of large number of objects though, since it comes with a significant performance cost.
You could use reflection to enumerate all your classes, but this is not a very efficient way to do things since it is kind of slow.
If they are all in the same assembly you could do something like:
class Shape
{
/* ... */
}
class CircleShape : Shape
{
public static string Name
{
get
{
return "Circle";
}
}
}
class RectangleShape : Shape
{
public static string Name
{
get
{
return "Rectangle";
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var subclasses = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes().Where(type => type.IsSubclassOf(typeof(Shape)));
foreach (var subclass in subclasses)
{
var nameProperty = subclass.GetProperty("Name", BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static);
if (nameProperty != null)
{
Console.WriteLine("Type {0} has name {1}.", subclass.Name, nameProperty.GetValue(null, null));
}
}
}
}
Of course you could also use attributes instead of static members which would probably preferable if you want to decorate the classes with information that you wanted to look up at runtime. There are many examples of how attributes work around the internet.
Related
I have a set of class objects that I can not touch. All of them have an ID property that I would like to access in other functions in a generic way.
For simplicities sake here is an example of my problem.
class Example1 {
int ID { get; set;}
}
class Example2 {
int ID { get; set; }
}
I am not able to edit either of these two classes or the library they are in.
I also have a function that expects an ID that can come from either Example1 or Example2. In order to handle this I have come up with a number of solutions but am curious what the proper way to solve this would be.
I could:
Use dynamic classes to access the various classes ID's.
Use reflection to pull out an ID parameter from any given type.
Use an odd inheritance by creating a new class so that Example1ViewModel : Example1, IIdentifiableObject and then expect IIdentifiableObject in my function and implement a copy constructor in Example1ViewModel to handle collecting the data
Write a separate filter function that can extract out the relevant parts from either class and provide the results.
None of these solutions seem particularly good to me. How should I be handling a many to one relationship like this in code and are there tools that C# provides to handle this?
possible solution using extension methods for the classes
public static class MyExtensions
{
public static int GetId(this Example1 ex)
{
return ex.Id;
}
public static int GetId(this Example2 ex)
{
return ex.Id;
}
}
You can add a static method using reflection:
public static int GetId(object obj)
{
Type type = obj.GetType();
return Convert.ToInt32(type.GetProperty("ID").GetValue(obj, null));
}
Then you can invoke it with any object to get the id property value.
Here is the solution that we ended up using and why.
We are using an inheritence structure that that takes the following two base classes:
FooExample
BarExample
and wraps them in the following
IExample
FooExampleModel : IExample
BarExampleModel : IExample
Both FooExampleModel and BarExampleModel have constructors which accept the class they are wrapping.
The importance of this is that it allows us to create methods accepting IExample instances without having to manipulate data beforehand. Additionally, unlike using dynamic types or reflection this solution provides us with compile time error checking.
Unfortunately using extension methods does not work. While it allows us to call the same method on two different object types like we wanted it does not allow those objects to be passed as Generic types to a seperate function.
The result of all of this is that this is now possible:
var foos = new List<FooExample>(); //Pretend there is data here
var bars = new List<BarExample>();
var examples = foos.Select((foo) => (IExample)new FooExampleModel(foo))
.Concat(bars.Select((bar) => (IExample)new BarExampleModel(bar)))
.ToList(); // Force evaluation before function call
DoSomethingOnIExamples(examples);
Besides that slightly gross LINQ query this appears to be the best way to accomplish this (DoSomethingOnIExamples(...) is a function accepting an IEnumerable<IExample> argument). Obviously this solution gets less nice as more types are added to this mix.
I have data from multiple organisations (police, fire, office) that need output in different formats.
To achieve this, I defined the following (this is a little simplified):
Transaction class -
"Success" indicator - Boolean.
"Type of department"- String or Enum.
A class which can be of any type - Police, Fire or Office (My question is on this as you will see).
A GenerateOutput() method - to handle generation of file formats.
Police class
Age - String
VehicleNumber - Integer
Supervisor - String
Fire class
Name - String
FireEngineNumber - Integer
County - Enum
WorkTimings - Enum
Office Class
Age - String
DeskNumber - Integer
Department - String
PayScale - Enum
IsManagement - Bool
As you can see, the Police, Fire and Office classes dont share anything in common and are primarily intended as data carrying entities. I intend to use a Factory to return an appropriate generic (not a C# generic) Transaction object with the data (Transaction object with Police, Fire or Office data within it) and then pass the returned object to a Strategy pattern which determines the file format (CSV, Excel, or XML; specified in a configuration file) each one needs.
My problem is in the definition of the Transaction object.
What type does the class in "3." of the Transaction class need to be? The data for each org differs, there are no common members, I am unable to define a common class for all.
Is the overall design appropriate? What other designs should I consider?
Based on Peter's comments below:
I think using generics might work, I ran into a problem though. I would like to use a factory to return the object requested, using GetTransactionObject, as below. What should be the return type of GetTransactionObject to accomodate this.
class TransactionFactory
{
Dictionary<string, Type> typeClassLookup;
public TransactionFactory()
{
typeClassLookup = new Dictionary<string, Type>();
typeClassLookup.Add("Police", typeof(PoliceData));
typeClassLookup.Add("Fire", typeof(FireData));
}
Transaction<????> GetTransactionObject(string org)
{
if( typeClassLookup.TryGetValue(org, out typeValue))
{
switch (typeValue.ToString())
{
case "policeData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<PoliceData>() { Data = new PoliceData(), params = null};
case "FireData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<FireData>() {Data = new FireData(), params = null};
}
}
return transactionObject;
If the types really have nothing in common, then you need no explicit base class. System.Object suffices, just as with many other generic types (i.e. any generic type lacking a constraint).
In other words, you could declare as:
class Transaction<T>
{
public bool Success { get; private set; }
public T Entity { get; private set; }
public Transaction(bool success, T entity)
{
Success = success;
Entity = entity;
}
public void GenerateOutput() { /* something goes here */ }
}
Personally, I would avoid adding a "department type" member. After all, that's implicit from the type parameter T. But you could add that easily to the above if you want.
If and when you find that the types do have something in common, such that your Transaction<T> type needs to do more than simply hold onto an instance of one of those types (which is about all it can do without a constraint), then you will be able to put that commonality into an interface or base class (depending on the specific need), and specify that in a constraint for the Transaction<T> class.
Note that it's not clear what you mean for the GenerateOutput() to do, or how it should work. But assuming that you want output that is specific for each Entity value, it seems to me that that is your "something in common". I.e., it's not the Transaction<T> class at all that needs to implement that method, but rather each entity type. In that case, you have something like this:
interface IDepartmentEntity
{
void GenerateOutput();
}
class Office : IDepartmentEntity
{
public void GenerateOutput() { /* department-specific logic here */ }
}
// etc.
Then you can declare:
class Transaction<T> where T : IDepartmentEntity
{
public bool Success { get; private set; }
public T Entity { get; private set; }
public Transaction(bool success, T entity)
{
Success = success;
Entity = entity;
}
public void GenerateOutput() { Entity.GenerateOutput(); }
}
EDIT:
Per Prasant's follow-up edit, with a request for advice on the GetTransactionObject()…
The right way to do this depends on the caller and the context, a detail not provided in the question. IMHO, the best scenario is where the caller is aware of the type. This allows the full power of generics to be used.
For example:
class TransactionFactory
{
public Transaction<T> GetTransactionObject<T>()
where T : IDepartmentEntity, new()
{
return new Transaction<T>()
{
Data = new T(),
params = null
}
}
}
Then you call like this:
Transaction<FireData> transaction = factory.GetTransactionObject<FireData>();
The caller, of course already knowing the type it is creating, then can fill in the appropriate properties of the transaction.Data object.
If that approach is not possible, then you will need for Transaction<T> itself to have a base class, or implement an interface. Note that in my original example, the IDepartmentEntity interface has only one method, and it's the same as the GenerateOutput() method in the Transaction class.
So maybe, that interface is really about generating output instead of being a data entity. Call it, instead of IDepartmentEntity, something like IOutputGenerator.
In that case, you might have something like this:
class Transaction<T> : IOutputGenerator
{
// all as before
}
class TransactionFactory
{
public IOutputGenerator GetTransactionObject(string org)
{
if( typeClassLookup.TryGetValue(org, out typeValue))
{
switch (typeValue.ToString())
{
case "policeData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<PoliceData>() { Data = new PoliceData(), params = null};
case "FireData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<FireData>() {Data = new FireData(), params = null};
}
}
return transactionObject;
}
}
This is an inferior solution, as it means the caller can only directly access the IOutputGenerator functionality. Anything else requires doing some type-checking and special-case code, something that really ought to be avoided whenever possible.
Note: if the Transaction type has other members which, like the GenerateOutput() method, are independent of the contained type T here, and which would be useful to callers who don't know T, then a possible variation of the above is to not reuse the interface used for the department-specific data types, but instead declare a base class for Transaction<T>, named of course Transaction, containing all those members not related to T. Then the return value can be Transaction.
What type does the class in "3." of the Transaction class need to be?
To decouple your department classes from the various export types, I recommend you make the department classes implement a common interface. Something like this:
public interface Exportable {
// return a list of attribute names, values, and types to export
IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> GetAttributes();
}
For example:
public class Police : Exportable {
public IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> GetAttributes() {
// return list size 3 - attribute info for Age, VehicleNumber, Supervisor
}
}
Is the overall design appropriate? What other designs should I consider?
The Transaction class design doesn't seem well suited for this problem.
Consider an Export class with a method for each export type, each method which receives the attributes returned from the Exportable interface method. Basic outline:
public static class Export {
public static boolean CSV(IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> attributes) {
// export attributes to CSV, return whether succeeded
}
public static boolean Excel(IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> attributes) {
// export attributes to Excel, return whether succeeded
}
// same thing for XML
}
I have the following type of code sample across one of my projects...
[Obfuscation(Exclude = true)]
[UsedImplicitly]
public DelegateCommand<object> OpenXCommand { get; private set; }
I am finding the attributes are adding a lot of "noise" to the code - I also see it in a way violating the DRY principle since I may have several properties like this in one class, all with the same attribute decoration.
Q: Is there some way I can set up an attribute that will represent a combination of sub attributes?
Ideally I would like something that looks like this..
[MyStandardCommandAttribute]
public DelegateCommand<object> OpenXCommand { get; private set; }
I have not implemented my own attributes before so I am unsure if this is possible. Any suggestions?
No. Your one attribute cannot "be" Obfuscation and UsedImplicitly at the same time (there's no multiple inheritance in C#).
Code looking for e.g. UsedImplicitlyAttribute has no way of knowing that MyStandardCommandAttribute is supposed to represent UsedImplicitlyAttribute (unless you control all of the code using all of these attributes).
Unfortunately, there's no way to do this in C#.
But, if you control the places that read these attributes (with reflection), you can do it by convention.
For example, you can have a marker interface that will "annotate" your attribute with the attributes it proxies (sounds like a meta-attribute):
public interface AttributeProxy<T>
where T : Attribute {}
public class MyStandardCommandAttribute :
Attribute,
AttributeProxy<ObfuscationAttribute>,
AttributeProxy<UsedImplicitlyAttribute> {}
(Of course, you also have to match the right AttributeUsages. And you can't set properties on the proxied attributes like this.)
Now, you could go a step further and use an IL manipulation library, like Mono.Cecil, to actually transfer the attributes appropriately in a post-compilation step. In this case, it would work even if it weren't you reflecting on these attributes.
Update: still in the reflect-your-own-attributes scenario, you can use the below code to get to proxied attributes, even setting properties values:
public interface IAttributeProxy {
Attribute[] GetProxiedAttributes();
}
public class MyStandardCommandAttribute : Attribute, IAttributeProxy {
public Attribute[] GetProxiedAttributes() {
return new Attribute[] {
new ObfuscationAttribute { Exclude = true },
new UsedImplicitlyAttribute()
};
}
}
Use this extension method on your reflection code:
public static object[] GetCustomAttributesWithProxied(this MemberInfo self, bool inherit) {
var attributes = self.GetCustomAttributes(inherit);
return attributes.SelectMany(ExpandProxies).ToArray();
}
private static object[] ExpandProxies(object attribute) {
if (attribute is IAttributeProxy) {
return ((IAttributeProxy)attribute).GetProxiedAttributes().
SelectMany(ExpandProxies).ToArray(); // don't create an endless loop with proxies!
}
else {
return new object[] { attribute };
}
}
In C#, I am defining a static field of a specific class. From within the class, I want to be able to display the name of the static field, pretty much like this:
public class Unit {
public string NameOfField { get { return ...; } }
}
public static Unit Hectare = new Unit();
If I now access:
Hectare.NameOfField
I want it to return:
Hectare
I know there is a static function System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod(), but as far as I can tell there is no way to get the name of the instance containing this current method?
There is also the System.RuntimeFieldHandle structure, but I have not been able to identify any GetCurrentFieldHandle() method.
I am not sure if I am missing something obvious?
Any help on this is very much appreciated.
You should not count on variable names in you developments as they do not exits at runtime.
It's better to initialize Unit with a name directly:
public class Unit {
public Unit(string name)
{
NameOfField = name;
}
public string NameOfField { get; private set;} }
}
public static Unit Hectare = new Unit("Hectare");
Only way around this will be to store that information in the class:
public static Unit Hectare = new Unit("Hectare");
When your code is compiled all variable names are lost and replaced by internal references. There is no way to get that name again.
You can use Reflection to obtain class Fields and properties. Like below:
Suppose you have class with one property:
class Test
{
public static string MySupperField
{
get
{
return "Some symbols here";
}
}
}
......
You can read the property name in such way:
public string[] GetClassStaticNames(Type T)
{
string[] names;
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo[] props = T.GetProperties(); // This will return only properties not fields! For fields obtaining use T.GetFields();
names = new string[props.Count()];
for (int i = 0; i < props.Count(); i++)
{
names[i] = props[i].Name;
}
return names;
}
Hope this will help.
[EDIT]
Returning to your question - No you cant obtain name of current variable.
What you are asking about cant be done because of classes nature, they are objects in memory and reference to one object can be held in many variables, and when you are requesting value of instance field or property it will be actually performed operation with object in memory not with variable wich holds reference to that object. So obtaining name of variable wich holds reference to current instance have no sence
Thanks everyone who has taken the time to answer and discuss my question.
Just to let you know, I have implemented a solution that is sufficient for my needs. The solution is not general, and it has some pitfalls, but I'd thought I share it anyway in case it can be of help to someone else.
This is in principle what the class that is used when defining fields looks like:
public class Unit : IUnit {
public NameOfField { get; set; }
...
}
As you can see, the class implements the IUnit interface, and I have provided a public setter in the NameOfField property.
The static fields are typically defined like this within some containing class:
public static Unit Hectare = new Unit();
My solution is to set the NameOfField property through reflection before the field is used in the implementation.
I do this through a static constructor (that of course needs to be invoked before the Unit fields are accessed.
I use Linq to traverse the executing assembly for the relevant fields, and when I have detected these fields (fields which type implements the IUnit interface), I set the NameOfField property for each of them using the Any extension method:
Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes().
SelectMany(type => type.GetFields(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static)).
Where(fieldInfo => fieldInfo.FieldType.GetInterfaces().Contains(typeof(IUnit))).
Any(fieldInfo =>
{
((IUnit)fieldInfo.GetValue(null)).NameOfField= fieldInfo.Name;
return false;
});
There are some shortcomings with this approach:
The static constructor has to be invoked through manual intervention before any Unit fields can be accessed
The NameOfField setter is public. In my case this is no problem, but it might be when applied in other scenarios. (I assume that the setter could be made private and invoked through further reflection, but I have not taken the time to explore that path further.)
... ?
Either way, maybe this solution can be of help to someone else than me.
I have a solution that works, but for educational purposes I want to understand if there is a better/cleaner/right way to do it.
Problem: In my "client" app I have a dictionary Dictionary<String, PremiseObject> where the key (String) is a immutable URL to a resource (it's actually a REST URL). PremiseObject is the base type of a whole set of derived classes; thus the Dictionary actually contains a family of classes all derived from PremiseObject.
A key requirement is I want to try to 'guarantee' that no PremiseObjects get created OUTSIDE of the dictionary.
Solution: I have the following function for getting a object out of the dictionary. It either accesses the existing instance, or if it does not exist creates it:
public PremiseObject GetOrCreateServerObject(string premiseObjectType, string location)
{
PremiseObject po = null;
if (!premiseObjects.TryGetValue(location, out po))
{
string classname;
// Create an instance of the right PremiseObject derived class:
po = // gobbly-gook that is not relevant to this question.
premiseObjects.Add(location, po);
}
else
{
Debug.WriteLine("Already exists: {0}", location);
}
return po;
}
Callers do this:
DoorSensor door =
(DoorSensor)server.GetOrCreateServerObject("DoorSensor",
"http://xyz/FrontDoor");
Works great. But I think there's a pattern or design that would elegantly allow me to encapsulate the "single-instance of each object contained in the dictionary" more.
For example, callers could do this:
DoorSensor door = null;
if (!server.ServerObjects.TryGetValue("DoorSensor",
"http://xyz/FrontDoor",
out door))
Debug.WriteLine("Something went very wrong");
I'm not really what to call this pattern. My ServerObjects are "single-instanced" by location. And my GetOrCreateServerObject is like a factory that lazy creates.
But it's possible for instances to be created that don't get put into the dictionary, which could lead to problems.
Like I said, what I have works... Cheers!
UPDATE 1/26/2011 10:13PM -
I just realized a potential problem: On the server side the object represented by a location/URL can actually be multi-inherited. It is THEORETICALLY possible for an object to be both a DoorSensor and an DigitalRelay.
I currently don't care about any of those cases (e.g. for garage doors I simplified my example above; there really is no DoorSensor I exposed, just a GarageDoorOpener which includes BOTH properties for sensing (e.g. Status) and actuation (e.g. Trigger). But this puts a wrinkle in my whole scheme if I were to care. Since this project is just for me :-) I am going to declare I don't care and document it.
I would propose the following simple idea:
PremiseObject's constructor is declared internal.
A special factory object is responsible for creating (or returning an already created) instances. The dictionary is a part of the factory.
Clients are located in another assembly.
This way PremiseObjects can be created by clients only through the factory. This way you can guarantee that only single instance of object exists for each location.
A variant of the idea would be to declare the PremiseObject's constructor private, and declare the factory a friend; but (unlike C++) C# doesn't have a friend notion.
Ok you can probably avoid a parameter and a cast (in the consumer code any way) with a generic method.
public abstract class PremiseObject
{
protected PremiseObject()
{
}
public string Location { get; set; }
public static void GetSensor<T>(string location, out T sensor)
where T : PremiseObject, new()
{
PremiseObject so;
if(_locationSingltons.TryGetValue(location, out so))
{
sensor = (T) so; // this will throw and exception if the
// wrong type has been created.
return;
}
sensor = new T();
sensor.Location = location;
_locationSingltons.Add(location, sensor);
}
private static Dictionary<string, PremiseObject> _locationSingltons
= new Dictionary<string, PremiseObject>();
}
Then the calling code looks a bit nicer:
DoorSensor frontDoor;
PremiseObject.GetSensor("http://FrontDoor/etc", out frontDoor);
So I like that calling convention - if you want to stay away from throwing an exception you can change the return type to bool and indicate failure that way. Personally I wouls say that an exception is what you want.
You may prefer the call without the out parameter - but if you do that then you have to supply the type to the method call - anyway defining the factory method would look like this:
public static T GetSensor<T>(string location) where T : PremiseObject, new()
{
PremiseObject so;
if (_locationSingltons.TryGetValue(location, out so))
{
return (T)so; // this will throw and exception if the
// wrong type has been created.
}
T result = new T();
result.Location = location;
_locationSingltons.Add(location, result);
return result;
}
Then the calling code looks like this:
var frontDoor2 = PremiseObject.GetSensor<DoorSensor>("http://FrontDoor/etc");
I like both these approaches because nothing has to be repeated. The type of the PremiseObject only gets stated once - there is no need for a string defining the type.
If you want to be really, really sure that no instances of PremiseObject get created that aren't placed in the dictionary, you could make the constructors all private, and create a static constructor (for each subclass) that took as a parameter the Dictionary object you're referring to. This static constructor would check the dictionary object to make sure that there wasn't an existing instance, and then return either the new or the existing instance as required. So something like this:
public class PremiseObject
{
public static Dictionary<string, PremiseObject> PremiseObjects { get; private set; }
static PremiseObject()
{
PremiseObjects = new Dictionary<string, PremiseObject>();
}
}
public class DerivedPremiseObject : PremiseObject
{
private DerivedPremiseObject()
{
}
public static DerivedPremiseObject GetDerivedPremiseObject(string location)
{
DerivedPremiseObject po = null;
if (!PremiseObject.PremiseObjects.TryGetValue(location, out po))
{
po = new DerivedPremiseObject();
PremiseObject.PremiseObjects.Add(location, po);
}
return po;
}
}
And there are a variety of similar strategies you could use. The key is to somehow make the constructor private and only allow access to the constructor through a static method that enforces the logic of the class construction.
Perhaps you could make PremiseObject a singleton, then you wouldn't have to worry about each object in the dictionary beign a single instance?
In the general case, setting access modifiers on your constructors should do the trick of not allowing anyone external to create the objects (barring reflection). However, these would need to be internal, so anything else in the assembly would be able to instantiate them.
I suspect many of your requirements may be met by using an off the shelf dependency injection container that supports singleton instances. It feels close, but maybe not quite the same. (possibly StrutureMap, Ninject, Castle Windsor, or Unity in no particular order)