The design problem is as follows, actual problem consists of 2 modules.
Module 1 classes (External Assembly)
abstract class Letter
{
private int _id;
protected Letter(int id) { _id = id; }
public abstract string Val { get; }
}
class LetterA : Letter
{
public LetterA(int id) : base(id) {}
public override string Val
{
get { return "A"; }
}
}
class WordWithALettersOnly
{
public IList<LetterA> ALetters { get; set; }
}
Module 2 classes
class LetterSmallA : LetterA
{
public LetterSmallA(int id) : base(id) {}
public override string Val
{
get { return "a"; }
}
}
class WordWithSmallALettersOnly : WordWithALettersOnly
{
private IList<LetterSmallA> _aLetters;
public new IList<LetterSmallA> ALetters
{
get { return _aLetters; }
set
{
_aLetters = value;
if(_aLetters != null)
base.ALetters = value.Cast<LetterA>().ToList(); // <-- reference lost
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var smallAWordOnly = new WordwithSmallALettersOnly();
smallAWordOnly.ALetters = new List<LetterSmallA>(){new LetterSmallA(1)};
Console.WriteLine("d : " + smallAWordOnly.ALetters.Count); // --> 1
Console.WriteLine("b : " + ((WordwithALettersOnly)smallAWordOnly).ALetters.Count); // --> 1
smallAWordOnly.ALetters.Add(new LetterSmallA(2)); --> 2
Console.WriteLine("d : " + smallAWordOnly.ALetters.Count);
Console.WriteLine("b : " + ((WordwithALettersOnly)smallAWordOnly).ALetters.Count); // -> 1
}
}
Essentially derived classes are generated in the module 2 and processed in the external assembly module 1, on a/c reference loss.
Is the only way to translate the derived class objects of the module 2 to module 1 class objects
I hope i have been explain clearly the issue, if not i do apologise, would really appreciate solutions to this.
If I understand your question correctly, what you want is to treat IList<LetterSmallA> as IList<LetterA>. This is not possible in C# and for very good reasons: one of the things IList<LetterA> says is possible to do with is is to “try to add any LetterA to it. This is not possible with IList<LetterSmallA> and so there is no built-in way to do what you want.
What you can do is to create your own implementation of IList<T> that wraps another IList<T> of derived type:
class BaseTypeList<TBase, TDerived> : IList<TBase>
where TBase : class
where TDerived : class, TBase
{
private readonly IList<TDerived> m_derivedList;
public BaseTypeList(IList<TDerived> derivedList)
{
m_derivedList = derivedList;
}
public IEnumerator<TBase> GetEnumerator()
{
return m_derivedList.Cast<TBase>().GetEnumerator();
}
public void Add(TBase item)
{
var derivedItem = item as TDerived;
if (derivedItem == null)
throw new ArgumentException();
m_derivedList.Add(derivedItem);
}
public void Clear()
{
m_derivedList.Clear();
}
// other members implemented in a similar fashion
}
(The class constraints are not necessary, but make some code simpler.)
Your setter for ALetters could then look like this:
_aLetters = value;
if(_aLetters == null)
base.ALetters = null;
else
base.ALetters = new BaseTypeList<LetterA, LetterSmallA>(value);
Related
I am reshaping an entire system that does not use base classes and base interfaces.
My idea to do so is to extract all the common methods to a base classes and base interfaces.
So basically, we would have:
A base class SomeClassBase implementing an interface ISomeClassBase
A derived class SomeClassDerived implementing ISomeClassDerived (this interface deriving from ISomeClassBase)
Now the problem, how can I instantiate "_mySession" in the derived class (which has a different cast than in the base class), while preserving all the methods from the base class:
public class SomeClassBase : ISomeClassBase
{
public IMySessionBase _mySession = MySession.Instance();
public SomeClassBase ()
{
_mySession.connect(); // Needed??
}
public void doSomething()
{
_mySession.doSomething();
}
}
public class SomeClassDerived : SomeClassBase, ISomeClassDerived
{
public IMySessionDerived _mySession = MySession.Instance();
public SomeClassDerived ()
{
_mySession.connect();
}
public void doSomethingElse()
{
_mySession.doSomethingElse();
}
}
One more thing, IMySessionDerived implements IMySessionBase.
Do not redefine _mySession Let it come from base class.
However in you Derived class you can still reassign.
public class SomeClassDerived : SomeClassBase, ISomeClassDerived
{
public SomeClassDerived ()
{
_mySession = MySession.Instance(); //Declaration comes from base class automatically
_mySession.connect();
}
public void doSomethingElse()
{
_mySession.doSomethingElse();
}
}
If your IMySessionBase and IMySessionDerived are following Hierarchy, it should work. But in some rare cases, You might end up getting into a DoubleDispatchProblem.
As Pointed out in commens, If you want to do something from IMySessionDerived you can add a Property.
public class SomeClassDerived : SomeClassBase, ISomeClassDerived
{
IMySessionDerived _derivedSessionAccessor=> _mySession as IMySessionDerived;
}
Update: To fix the exact design problem here,
Instead of deriving from the base class, have it as a field. And inherit from interface. So Instead of doing above approach,
do like,
public class SomeClassBase : ISomeClassBase
{
public IMySessionBase _mySession ;
public SomeClassBase ( IMySessionBase session)
{
_mySession=session;
_mySession.connect(); // Needed??
}
public void doSomething()
{
_mySession.doSomething();
}
}
public class SomeClassDerived : , ISomeClassDerived
{
public IMySessionDerived _mySession = MySession.Instance();
private SomeClassBase _baseClassInstance;
public SomeClassDerived ()
{
_baseClassInstance=new SomeClassBase(_mySession);
//_mySession.connect();
}
public void doSomethingElse()
{
_baseClassInstance.doSomethingElse();
}
}
Pasting #Selvin answer instead of the link buried in the comments:
The trick here is to use the keyword "base()"
using System;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var o1 = new O1();
o1.DS1();
var o2 = new O2();
o2.DS1();
o2.DS2();
}
public class Session1
{
protected readonly Type ownerType;
public Session1(Type type)
{
ownerType = type;
}
public virtual void DS1([CallerMemberName] string functionName = "")
{
Console.WriteLine(ownerType.Name + ":" + GetType().Name + ":" + functionName);
}
}
public class Session2 : Session1
{
public Session2(Type type):base(type) { }
public virtual void DS2([CallerMemberName] string functionName = "")
{
Console.WriteLine(ownerType.Name + ":" + GetType().Name + ":" + functionName);
}
}
public class O1
{
private readonly Session1 t;
public O1() : this(new Session1(typeof(O1))) { }
protected O1(Session1 t)
{
this.t = t;
}
public void DS1()
{
t.DS1();
}
}
public class O2 : O1
{
private readonly Session2 t;
public O2() : this(new Session2(typeof(O2))) { }
protected O2(Session2 t) : base(t)
{
this.t = t;
}
public void DS2()
{
t.DS2();
}
}
}
Review the following code, where to take care of cases with both single and named binding for an interface, an abstract factory is used as suggested here
Parameterized Factories Using Ninject
Challenge here is, I need to introduce IEnumerable<T> bankingOperationList, instead of T bankingOperationList, since for named binding it will always use the abstract factory injection, Func<string,T> bankingOperationFunc, but if I don't use IEnumerable<T> suggested above it leads to exception, due to this for even non named single binding, I need to use something like:
bankingOperationList.FirstOrDefault().Withdraw(), even when I know there will only be one dependency.
Another challenge is, for some named bindings it has 30 - 40 bindings in few cases, which will be unnecessarily filled, when I can default T bankingOperationList to null, as it is not required. Please let me know, if the issue needs further clarification. Working Console project underneath.
public interface IBankingOperation
{
void Withdraw();
}
public class BankingOperationOne : IBankingOperation
{
public BankingOperationOne()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: One :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation One");
}
}
public class BankingOperationTwo : IBankingOperation
{
public BankingOperationTwo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: Two :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation Two");
}
}
// Ninject Bindings
public class Bindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IBankingOperation>().To<BankingOperationOne>()
.Named("A");
Bind<IBankingOperation>().To<BankingOperationTwo>()
.Named("B");
Bind<Func<string,IBankingOperation>>().ToMethod(ctx => name => ctx.Kernel.Get<IBankingOperation>(name));
}
}
public class BankTran<T> where T : IBankingOperation
{
private IEnumerable<T> bankingOperationList = null;
private Func<string,T> bankingOperationFunc;
public BankTran(IEnumerable<T> boList = null,
Func<string,T> boFunc = null)
{
bankingOperationList = boList;
bankingOperationFunc = boFunc;
}
public void DoOperation(string identifier = null)
{
if(bankingOperationFunc != null)
bankingOperationFunc(identifier).Withdraw();
else
bankingOperationList.FirstOrDefault().Withdraw();
Console.WriteLine("Transaction Successful ");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel();
kernel.Load(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()); // Load from Bindings (derived from NinjectModule)
var transaction = kernel.Get<BankTran<IBankingOperation>>();
transaction.DoOperation("A");
}
}
Edit 1, based on response by jbl
public interface IBankingOperation<T>
{
void Withdraw();
}
public class BankingOperationOne : IBankingOperation<TestOne>
{
public BankingOperationOne()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: One :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation One");
}
}
public class BankingOperationTwo : IBankingOperation<TestTwo>
{
public BankingOperationTwo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: Two :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation Two");
}
}
public class TestOne { }
public class TestTwo { }
// Ninject Bindings
public class Bindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("A");
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("B");
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().WhenInjectedInto(typeof(BankTran<TestOne>));
Bind<Func<string, IBankingOperation<TestOne>>>().ToMethod(ctx => name => ctx.Kernel.Get<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>(name));
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestTwo>>().To<BankingOperationTwo>();
}
}
public class BankTran<T> where T : class
{
private IBankingOperation<T> bankingOperation;
private Func<string, IBankingOperation<T>> bankingOperationFunc;
public BankTran(IBankingOperation<T> bo = null,
Func<string, IBankingOperation<T>> boFunc = null)
{
bankingOperation = bo;
bankingOperationFunc = boFunc;
}
public void DoOperation(string identifier = null)
{
if (bankingOperationFunc != null && identifier != null)
bankingOperationFunc(identifier).Withdraw();
else if (bankingOperation != null)
bankingOperation.Withdraw();
Console.WriteLine("Transaction Successful ");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel(new NinjectSettings { AllowNullInjection = true});
kernel.Load(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()); // Load from Bindings (derived from NinjectModule)
var transaction = kernel.Get<BankTran<TestOne>>("A"); // Not Working
// var transaction = kernel.Get<BankTran<TestOne>>(); // Working
transaction.DoOperation();
}
}
Assuming BankingOperationOne is your default behaviour,
adding the following line in your Load method should allow to replace the IEnumerable<T> with T in your BankTran constructor :
Bind<IBankingOperation>().To<BankingOperationOne>().WhenInjectedInto(typeof(BankTran<>));
Another solution would be to just define a named binding for default behaviour
Bind<IBankingOperation>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("__DefaultBehaviour");
then
public void DoOperation(string identifier = "__DefaultBehaviour")
{
if (bankingOperationFunc != null)
bankingOperationFunc(identifier).Withdraw();
Console.WriteLine("Transaction Successful ");
}
Edit :
You should use the Ninject.Extenstions.Factory nuget package.
Using this package, the following code seems to fullfill you requirements.
public interface IBankingOperation<T>
{
void Withdraw();
}
public interface IBankingOperationFactory<T>
{
IBankingOperation<T> GetBankingOperation(string name);
}
public class BankingOperationOne : IBankingOperation<TestOne>
{
public BankingOperationOne()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: One :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation One");
}
}
public class BankingOperationTwo : IBankingOperation<TestTwo>
{
public BankingOperationTwo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: Two :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation Two");
}
}
public class TestOne { }
public class TestTwo { }
// Ninject Bindings
public class Bindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("A");
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("B");
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().WhenInjectedInto(typeof(BankTran<TestOne>));
Bind<IBankingOperationFactory<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>>().ToFactory();
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestTwo>>().To<BankingOperationTwo>();
}
}
public class BankTran<T> where T : class
{
private IBankingOperation<T> bankingOperation;
private IBankingOperationFactory<T> _bankingOperationFactory;
public BankTran(IBankingOperation<T> bo = null,
IBankingOperationFactory<T> bankingOperationFactory = null)
{
bankingOperation = bo;
_bankingOperationFactory = bankingOperationFactory;
}
public void DoOperation(string identifier = null)
{
if (_bankingOperationFactory != null && identifier != null)
_bankingOperationFactory.GetBankingOperation(identifier).Withdraw();
else if (bankingOperation != null)
bankingOperation.Withdraw();
Console.WriteLine("Transaction Successful ");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel(new NinjectSettings { AllowNullInjection = true });
kernel.Load(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()); // Load from Bindings (derived from NinjectModule)
var transaction = kernel.Get<BankTran<TestOne>>();
transaction.DoOperation();
transaction.DoOperation("A");
transaction.DoOperation("B");
}
}
This was from my university C# - windows forms exam, im trying to resolve some old subjects, but i seem to find myself stuck in this situation. This is my code:
abstract class CarFile
{
private string marca;
private readonly string serie;
public CarFile(string marca, string serie)
{
this.marca = marca;
this.serie = serie;
}
public string GetMarca
{
get { return this.marca; }
set { this.marca = value; }
}
public string GetSerie
{
get { return this.serie; }
}
public abstract string GetDescriere();
}
Then I have to do this:
my second class called ServiceFile : CarFile, ICloneable. in this class i have an array or list of strings called RepairComands which contains the necessary repairs.
- a private atribute called "motor" which can only take the following vallues {gas,gpl,hibrid} .
- a constructor which throws a generic exception if "serie==null"
-overrides the abrstract method getDescriere() to return the complete description of the car file
this is my code:
public class MyException : System.Exception
{
public MyException(string mesaj) : base(mesaj) { }
}
class ServiceFile : CarFile, ICloneable, IComparable, IReparabil
{
string[] RepairComands;
private enum motor { motorina, benzina, GPL, electric, hibrid };
public ServiceFile(string serie, string marca, string[] RepairComands):base(serie,marca){
if (serie == null)
{
throw new MyException("MESAJ");
}
this.RepairComands = RepairComands;
}
//not sure if this is correct
public override string GetDescriere()
{
string msj = string.Format("the car {0} with serial {1} and necess. repairs {2}", this.GetMarca, this.GetSerie, this.RepairComands);
return msj;
}
public object Clone()
{
ServiceFile clone = new ServiceFile(this.GetSerie, this.GetMarca, this.RepairComands);
return clone;
}
//implemented IComparable to be able to compare here 2 files by the number of repairs needed
public int CompareTo(object obj)
{
ServiceFile altafisa = (ServiceFile)obj;
if (this.RepairComands != altafisa.RepairComands)
return 1;
else return 0;
}
//overloads ToString to return the complete file description
public override string ToString()
{
return this.GetMarca + " "+ this.GetSerie + " " + this.RepairComands;
}
}
}
so far so good. this actually works.
but my problem comes now:
I have to define the interface IRep which contains 2 methods : void RepairCar() and void AddRepair(string repair).
THen ServiceFile class implements : IRep, and the function RepairCar() will be used for removing the last repair from the collection RepairComands
and the function AddRepair(string repair) will be used to add a repair in the collection RepairComands.
(For allowing the access to the private list of Repairs we should overload the index operator[] )
Thank you so much for your help, I'm a beginnes in C# and just wanted to understand better this subject that was given in my class so i could learn
Thank you
I have an abstract base class Base which has some common properties, and many derived ones which implement different logic but rarely have additional fields.
public abstract Base
{
protected int field1;
protected int field2;
....
protected Base() { ... }
}
Sometimes I need to clone the derived class. So my guess was, just make a virtual Clone method in my base class and only override it in derived classes that have additional fields, but of course my Base class wouldn't be abstract anymore (which isn't a problem since it only has a protected constructor).
public Base
{
protected int field1;
protected int field2;
....
protected Base() { ... }
public virtual Base Clone() { return new Base(); }
}
public A : Base { }
public B : Base { }
The thing is, since I can't know the type of the derived class in my Base one, wouldn't this lead to have a Base class instance even if I call it on the derived ones ? (a.Clone();) (actually after a test this is what is happening but perhaps my test wasn't well designed that's why I have a doubt about it)
Is there a good way (pattern) to implement a base Clone method that would work as I expect it or do I have to write the same code in every derived class (I'd really like to avoid that...)
Thanks for your help
You can add a copy constructor to your base class:
public abstract Base
{
protected int field1;
protected int field2;
protected Base() { ... }
protected Base(Base copyThis) : this()
{
this.field1 = copyThis.field1;
this.field2 = copyThis.field2;
}
public abstract Base Clone();
}
public Child1 : Base
{
protected int field3;
public Child1 () : base() { ... }
protected Child1 (Child1 copyThis) : base(copyThis)
{
this.field3 = copyThis.field3;
}
public override Base Clone() { return new Child1(this); }
}
public Child2 : Base
{
public Child2 () : base() { ... }
protected Child (Child copyThis) : base(copyThis)
{ }
public override Base Clone() { return new Child2(this); }
}
public Child3 : Base
{
protected int field4;
public Child3 () : base() { ... }
protected Child3 (Child3 copyThis) : base(copyThis)
{
this.field4 = copyThis.field4;
}
public override Base Clone()
{
var result = new Child1(this);
result.field1 = result.field2 - result.field1;
}
}
Just override the Clone and have another method to CreateInstance then do your stuff.
This way you could have only Base class avoiding generics.
public Base
{
protected int field1;
protected int field2;
....
protected Base() { ... }
public virtual Base Clone()
{
var bc = CreateInstanceForClone();
bc.field1 = 1;
bc.field2 = 2;
return bc;
}
protected virtual Base CreateInstanceForClone()
{
return new Base();
}
}
public A : Base
{
protected int fieldInA;
public override Base Clone()
{
var a = (A)base.Clone();
a.fieldInA =5;
return a;
}
protected override Base CreateInstanceForClone()
{
return new A();
}
}
I did something similar as Alexander Simonov, but perhaps simpler. The idea is (as I said in a comment) to have just one Clone() in the base class and leave all the work to a virtual CloneImpl() which each class defines as needed, relying on the CloneImpl()s of the base classes.
Creation of the proper type is left to C#'s MemberwiseClone() which will do whatever it takes for the object that's calling. This also obviates the need for a default constructor in any of the classes (none is ever called).
using System;
namespace CloneImplDemo
{
// dummy data class
class DeepDataT : ICloneable
{
public int i;
public object Clone() { return MemberwiseClone(); }
}
class Base: ICloneable
{
protected virtual Base CloneImpl()
{
// Neat: Creates the type of whatever object is calling.
// Also obviates the need for default constructors
// (Neither Derived1T nor Derived2T have one.)
return (Base)MemberwiseClone();
}
public object Clone()
{
// Calls whatever CloneImpl the
// actual calling type implements.
return CloneImpl();
}
}
// Note: No Clone() re-implementation
class Derived1T : Base
{
public Derived1T(int i) { der1Data.i = i; }
public DeepDataT der1Data = new DeepDataT();
protected override Base CloneImpl()
{
Derived1T cloned = (Derived1T)base.CloneImpl();
cloned.der1Data = (DeepDataT)der1Data.Clone();
return cloned;
}
}
// Note: No Clone() re-implementation.
class Derived2T : Derived1T
{
public Derived2T(int i1, int i2) : base(i1)
{
der2Data.i = i2;
}
public string txt = string.Empty; // copied by MemberwiseClone()
public DeepDataT der2Data = new DeepDataT();
protected override Base CloneImpl()
{
Derived2T cloned = (Derived2T)base.CloneImpl();
// base members have been taken care of in the base impl.
// we only add our own stuff.
cloned.der2Data = (DeepDataT)der2Data.Clone();
return cloned;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj1 = new Derived2T(1,2);
obj1.txt = "this is obj1";
var obj2 = (Derived2T)obj1.Clone();
obj2.der1Data.i++;
obj2.der2Data.i++; // changes value.
obj2.txt = "this is a deep copy"; // replaces reference.
// the values for i should differ because
// we performed a deep copy of the DeepDataT members.
Console.WriteLine("obj1 txt, i1, i2: " + obj1.txt + ", " + obj1.der1Data.i + ", " + obj1.der2Data.i);
Console.WriteLine("obj2 txt, i1, i2: " + obj2.txt + ", " + obj2.der1Data.i + ", " + obj2.der2Data.i);
}
}
}
Output:
obj1 txt, i1, i2: this is obj1, 1, 2
obj2 txt, i1, i2: this is a deep copy, 2, 3
You could do something like this:
public class Base<T> where T: Base<T>, new()
{
public virtual T Clone()
{
T copy = new T();
copy.Id = this.Id;
return copy;
}
public string Id { get; set; }
}
public class A : Base<A>
{
public override A Clone()
{
A copy = base.Clone();
copy.Name = this.Name;
return copy;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
private void Test()
{
A a = new A();
A aCopy = a.Clone();
}
But i doubt that it will bring something useful. I'll create another example..
I got another idea using the Activator class:
public class Base
{
public virtual object Clone()
{
Base copy = (Base)Activator.CreateInstance(this.GetType());
copy.Id = this.Id;
return copy;
}
public string Id { get; set; }
}
public class A : Base
{
public override object Clone()
{
A copy = (A)base.Clone();
copy.Name = this.Name;
return copy;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
A a = new A();
A aCopy = (A)a.Clone();
But i would go for the Alexander Simonov answer.
If performance is not important for your case, you can simplify your code by creating just one general clone method which can clone whatever to whatever if properties are same:
Base base = new Base(){...};
Derived derived = XmlClone.CloneToDerived<Base, Derived>(base);
public static class XmlClone
{
public static D CloneToDerived<T, D>(T pattern)
where T : class
{
using (var ms = new MemoryStream())
{
using (XmlWriter writer = XmlWriter.Create(ms))
{
Type typePattern = typeof(T);
Type typeTarget = typeof(D);
XmlSerializer xmlSerializerIn = new XmlSerializer(typePattern);
xmlSerializerIn.Serialize(writer, pattern);
ms.Position = 0;
XmlSerializer xmlSerializerOut = new XmlSerializer(typeTarget, new XmlRootAttribute(typePattern.Name));
D copy = (D)xmlSerializerOut.Deserialize(ms);
return copy;
}
}
}
}
Found this question while trying to solve this exact problem, had some fun with LINQPad while at it.
Proof of concept:
void Main()
{
Person p = new Person() { Name = "Person Name", Dates = new List<System.DateTime>() { DateTime.Now } };
new Manager()
{
Subordinates = 5
}.Apply(p).Dump();
}
public static class Ext
{
public static TResult Apply<TResult, TSource>(this TResult result, TSource source) where TResult: TSource
{
var props = typeof(TSource).GetProperties(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
foreach (var p in props)
{
p.SetValue(result, p.GetValue(source));
}
return result;
}
}
class Person
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<DateTime> Dates { get; set; }
}
class Manager : Person
{
public int Subordinates { get; set; }
}
I have the (pseudo) code:
public class GlobalClass
{
public GlobalClass()
{
var x = this.GetType().Name // Returns "Channels"
// WHAT TO DO HERE?
}
}
public class BaseClass
{
public string Title { get; set; }
}
And using this code:
public class Channels : GlobalClass
{
public Channels()
{
}
public class Channel : BaseClass
{
}
}
Where the comment is (// WHAT TO DO HERE?), I want to get the runtime type of BaseClass,
where in my sample code should return Channel.
I am open to different approaches, but only if it's accompanied with an explanation why I should change the code.
I think you need a generic class here, something like:
public class GlobalClass<T> where T : BaseClass
{
public GlobalClass()
{
var theType = typeof(T); //you got it
}
}
public class BaseClass
{
public string Title { get; set; }
}
public class Channel : BaseClass { }
public class Channels : GlobalClass<Channel> { }
You can use reflection like this:
using System.Reflection;
...
public class GlobalClass
{
public GlobalClass()
{
Type[] types = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly ().GetTypes ();
foreach ( Type t in types )
{
if ( t.BaseType == typeof ( BaseClass ) )
{
Console.WriteLine ( "I found a class " + t.Name + " that subclass BaseClass" );
}
}
}
}
See also Stack Overflow question List of classes in an assembly.
is operator is just for that purpose.
getType() method with class Type can also be used.
class Example
{
static void ShowTypeInfo (object o)
{
Console.WriteLine ("type name = {0},
full type name = {1}", o.GetType(),
o.GetType().FullName );
}
public static void Main()
{
long longType = 99;
Example example= new Example();
ShowTypeInfo (example);
ShowTypeInfo (longType);
}
}
To get the runtime type of anything, you first need an object instance to get the type from. So with your given structure, that's not possible.
There are two possible approaches:
Add a BaseClass parameter to the constructor of your GlobalClass:
public class GlobalClass
{
public GlobalClass(BaseClass data)
{
var dataType = data == null ? null : data.GetType();
// do something with the type
}
}
public class Channels : GlobalClass
{
public Channels(Channel data) : base(data)
{
}
public class Channel : BaseClass
{
}
}
Pass the type to the constructor directly:
public class GlobalClass
{
public GlobalClass(Type actualType)
{
Debug.Assert(typeof(BaseClass).IsAssignableFrom(actualType));
}
}
public class Channels : GlobalClass
{
public Channels() : base(typeof(Channel))
{
}
public class Channel : BaseClass
{
}
}
If the structure for some reason doesn't allow generics here (as Danny Chen suggested), I'd personally prefer the second approach, since that doesn't need an actual instance.