We Keep Coding

Passing continuous data between WinForms - c#

I am making a personal WinForms app. In my scenario say I have a C# Form1. Form1 is constantly getting live Exchange data from the Internet. Now I click a button on Form1 and Form2 opens. Now I want some values from Form1 on Form2.
I have a timer on Form2 which can collect data from Form1 but how?
I had tried to use properties but not able to do that as it updates only once as when we initialize Form2.
Any solution?
Also, how can I pass a single instance of a class to both forms, if they are not being created at the same time?

I. Solution: Use a Common Data Source
Method 1: Data Source with Events
Well, if it were me, I would probably not be trying to directly get the data from Form1. Instead, I would set up a common datasource, and then you would even be able to eliminate the timer on Form2 and drive it by when the data comes in if you like. (Or you can leave it and just pull from the datasource as your desired intervals.)
It would be something like this:
Data Source class
public class ExchangeCommonDataSource
{
public event EventHandler NewDataReceived;
public void FireNewDataReceieved()
{
if (NewDataReceived != null)
NewDataReceived();
}
private string mySomeData1 = "";
public string SomeData1
{
get
{
return SomeData1;
}
set
{
SomeData1 = value;
FireNewDataReceieved();
}
}
// properties for any other data
}
Then, when you are opening your forms, you'll just create an instance of ExchangeCommonDataSource, and pass it to both of the forms. In the form that is receiving the data you'll want to create an event handler function, and wherever you pass it the data source, you'll hook up that event.
example: receiving class code
public void HandleDataReceived(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// display the data
DoSomethingWith(mySource.SomeData1);
// etc...
}
private ExchangeCommonDataSource mySource;
public void SetDataSource(ExchangeCommonDataSource newSource)
{
mySource = newSource;
mySource.NewDataRecieved += new EventHandler(HandleDataReceived);
}
Then, in your first form, you just set the properties you want. You can actually have notifications that specified the actual data to load, either through separate event handlers, or by creating your own derived EventArgs and then using EventHandler<ExchangeCommonEventArgs> instead of a regular event handler.
example: main form data accessor
public void GetDataFromExchange()
{
mySource.SomeData1 = GetSomeData1FromExchange();
}
Also, this way you're not limited to having just those two forms communicate; if you decide to split it up with different forms, you could have each of them have a copy of the data source and each of them could handle the event or new events you define, and you're not tied to a model where you're expecting to communicate directly between each other. This would also allow, for instance, creating a separate class which writes some log data to disk, or whatever else you can imagine, without making significant changes to any of your existing stuff.
II. Extensibility for External Updates
The Dispatcher Base Class
So, what if you want to update to eventually send to another application or another machine even?
Well, this is actually very well accounted for since you've not got any dependencies on the forms left. So, say you wanted to support three methods: the initial, form to form method; sending via a named pipe to another app on the same machine; and TCP/IP to another machine entirely. All you would need to do is to define a class that acts as a dispatcher, hook it up as a receiver, and then you can hook up that object to take the events coming from the form and put the data wherever you want.
It should be fairly straightforward to define an abstract class or interface to do this, and then simply derive a class for any mode you want to support:
example: a notional abstract Dispatcher class
public class ExchangeDataDispatcher :
IDisposable
{
public ExchangeDataDispatcher(ExchangeCommonDataSource parDataSource)
{
myDataSource = parDataSource;
myDataSource.HandleDataReceived +=
new EventHandler(HandleDataReceived);
DispatcherInitialization();
}
private ExchangeCommonDataSource myDataSource;
private void HandleDataReceived(object sender, e EventArgs)
{
// here you could record statistics or whatever about the data
DispatcherHandleDataReceived(EventArgs);
}
protected abstract void DispatcherHandleDataReceived(e EventArgs);
protected abstract void DispatcherShutdown();
// significantly ripped from Microsoft's page on IDisposable
private bool disposed = false;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
// Check to see if Dispose has already been called.
if(!this.disposed)
{
// If disposing equals true, dispose all managed
// and unmanaged resources.
if(disposing)
{
// call a function which can be overridden in derived
// classes
DispatcherShutdown();
}
// Note disposing has been done.
disposed = true;
}
}
}
see the Microsoft page on IDisposable for some great example code and more information on IDisposable...
Deriving Dispatchers for Other Communication Methods
There's no way to make the form itself derive from this class, but there's no real need since you can just hook up as before. But, as quick example (just notional, not actually implementing the protocols, and you really should really consider the best way to implement these types of things, but I wanted to give you a fairly comprehensive example of what it takes, it's not as simple as the really really naive versions tend to be. )
example: (very) notional Pipe-based Dispatcher
// add these to your using statments
using System.IO.Pipes;
using System.Threading;
// NOTE: take all the async stuff with a grain of salt; this should give you a
// basic idea but there's no way I've gotten it right without actually testing
// and debugging everything. See the link
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6710444/named-pipes-server-read-timeout
// for some information on why it has to be done this way: basically timeout
// is not supported for named pipe server streams.
public class ExchangeDataLocalMachineDispatcher :
ExchangeDataDispatcher
{
// see http://www.switchonthecode.com/tutorials/dotnet-35-adds-named-pipes-support
// for some info on named pipes in .NET
public ExchangeDataLocalMachineDispatcher(
ExchangeCommonDataSource parDataSource,
NamedPipeServerStream ServerPipe
) :
base(parDataSource)
{
myPipe = ServerPipe;
// do any extra initialization, etc. here, negotiation for instance
StartPipeThread();
}
private NamedPipeServerStream myPipe;
private ExchangeCommonDataSource myDataSource;
// assuming you have PipeMessage defined and that your handler
// fills them in.
private List<PipeMessage> myOutgoingMessages =
new List<PipeMessage>();
private Thread myPipeThread;
private bool EndPipeListener = false;
private AutoResetEvent myWaitEvent = null;
private AutoResetEvent myDataReadyToGoEvent = null;
// set this to something reasonable for the response timeout
private int WaitTimeout = 10000;
// example: at least every minute there should be data to send
private int WaitForDataToSendTimeout = 60000;
private void StartPipeThread()
{
IAsyncResult LastResult = null;
Action<IAsyncResult> WaitForResult =
(a) =>
{
LastResult = a;
myWaitEvent.Set();
}
myPipeThread = new System.Threading.ThreadStart(
() =>
{
try
{
myWaitEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
myPipe.BeginWaitForConnection(
WaitForResult, null
);
bool TimedOut = !myWaitEvent.WaitOne(WaitTimeout);
if (TimedOut || !LastResult.IsCompleted)
throw new Exception("Error: pipe operation error.");
while (!EndPipeListener)
{
byte[] Response = myPipe.BeginRead(
WaitForResult, null
);
myWaitEvent.WaitOne(WaitTimeout);
if (TimedOut || !LastResult.IsCompleted)
throw new Exception("Error: pipe operation error.");
// another assumed function to handle ACKs and such
HandleResponse(Response);
myWaitEvent.Set();
// now wait for data and send
bool TimedOut =
myDataReadyToGoEvent.WaitOne(WaitForDataToSendTimeout);
if (TimedOut || !LastResult.IsCompleted)
throw new Exception("Error: no data to send.");
// an assumed function that will pull the messages out of
// the outgoing message list and send them via the pipe
SendOutgoingMessages();
myDataReadyToGoEvent.Set();
}
myWaitEvent.Set();
}
finally
{
// here you can clean up any resources, for instance you need
// to dispose the wait events, you can leave the pipe for the
// DispatcherShutdown method to fire in case something else
// wants to handle the error and try again... this is all
// fairly naive and should be thought through but I wanted
// to give you some tools you can use.
// can't remember if you're supposed to use .Close
// .Dispose or both off the top of my head; I think it's
// one or the other.
myWaitEvent.Dispose();
myDataReady.Dispose();
myWaitEvent = null;
myDataReady = null;
}
}
);
}
protected PipeMessage[] ConstructEventMessage(e EventArgs)
{
// actually we're not using the event args here but I left it
// as a placeholder for if were using the derived ones.
return
PipeMessage.CreateMessagesFromData(
myDataSource.GetMessageData()
);
}
protected override void DispatcherHandleDataReceived(e EventArgs)
{
// create a packet to send out; assuming that the
// ConstructEventMessage method is defined
myOutgoingMessages.Add(ConstructEventMessage(e));
}
protected override void DispatcherShutdown()
{
// this is called from the base class in the Dispose() method
// you can destroy any remaining resources here
if (myWaitEvent != null)
{
myWaitEvent.Dispose();
}
// etc. and
myPipe.Dispose();
}
// you could theoretically override this method too: if you do, be
// sure to call base.Dispose(disposing) so that the base class can
// clean up if resources are there to be disposed.
// protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
// {
// // do stuff
// base.Dispose(disposing);
// }
}
Phew. Note that I'm very unhappy currently with the length of the StartPipeThread function, and I would definitely be refactoring that.
So, you could also implement this for TCP/IP sockets, or whatever protocol you can imagine, and it's all handled without having to continually modify the classes from the first section.
My apologies for the quality of any of the code there; I am open to suggestion/correction/flaming about it, and I'll do my best to make corrections if you just let me know. :P
III. Putting the Data Where it's Needed
After you have this set up, you'll need to pass the same data to whatever forms are using it. If you're not creating both your forms at the same time, then you'll need some way to get each destination a reference to the same data source. (Note: the numbering of the options is in no way intended to imply these are your only choices!)
Here are a few options for doing so:
Option 1: via Property on your main Form
This method is appropriate if your main form is responsible for creating each of the child forms, for instance, through menu items. You simply create a member variable to hold the data, and wherever you create the data, store a reference to it in that member. If you have multiple instances of the source, you can store them e.g. in a dictionary that allows you to look up the one you need.
example: code for main Form
private ExchangeCommonDataSource myData { get; set; }
// you can also store in something that lets you identify multiple
// possible data sources; in this case, you could use, say, email address
// as a lookup: myData["mickey#example.com"];
//private Dictionary<string, ExchangeCommonDataSource> myData =
// new Dictionary<string, ExchangeCommonDataSource>();
public frmMyMainForm()
{
InitializeComponent();
// ... other initialization for the main form ...
// create the data here and save it in a private member on your
// form for later; this doesn't have to be in the constructor,
// just make sure you save a reference to the source when you
// do create your first form that uses the source.
myData = new ExchangeCommonDataSource();
}
// then, in the methods that actually create your form
// e.g. if creating from a menu item, the handlers
public void FirstFormCreatorMethod()
{
frmFirstForm = new frmFirstForm(myData);
frmFirstForm.MdiParent = this;
frmFirstForm.Show();
}
public void SecondFormCreatorMethod()
{
frmSecondForm = new frmSecondForm(myData);
frmSecondForm.MdiParent = this;
frmSecondForm.Show();
}
Option II: static Properties on your Data Source
This option can be used if the forms are being created externally from the main form, in which case you will not have access to its methods. The idea behind this method is that you want an easy way to find whatever item you need, independent of the main form itself, and by providing a static method, additional data consumers can find the sources on their own using properties accessible with access only to the class declaration and then some sort of key if there can be multiple sources.
example: ExchangeCommonDataSource.cs
// a dummy source class; this is just the parts that were relevant
// to this particular discussion.
public partial class ExchangeCommonDataSource
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string OptionalString { get; set; }
public int MailboxNumber { get; set; }
public Guid SourceGuid { get; set; }
public long BigNumber { get; set; }
// these static members provide the functionality necessary to look
// retrieve an existing source just through the class interface
// this holds the lookup of Guid -> Source for later retreival
static Dictionary<Guid, ExchangeCommonDataSource> allSources =
new Dictionary<Guid,ExchangeCommonDataSource>();
// this factory method looks up whether the source with the passed
// Guid already exists; if it does, it returns that, otherwise it
// creates the data source and adds it to the lookup table
public static ExchangeCommonDataSource GetConnection(
Guid parSourceGuid, string parUsername, long parBigNumber
)
{
// there are many issues involved with thread safety, I do not
// guarantee that I got it right here, it's to show the idea. :)
// here I'm just providing some thread safety; by placing a lock
// around the sources to prevent two separate calls to a factory
// method from each creating a source with the same Guid.
lock (allSources)
{
ExchangeCommonDataSource RetVal;
allSources.TryGetValue(parSourceGuid, out RetVal);
if (RetVal == null)
{
// using member initializer, you can do this to limit the
// number of constructors; here we only need the one
RetVal = new ExchangeCommonDataSource(parSourceGuid) {
Username = parUsername, BigNumber = parBigNumber
};
allSources.Add(parSourceGuid, RetVal);
}
return RetVal;
}
}
// this function is actually extraneous since the GetConnection
// method will either create a new or return an existing source.
// if you had need to throw an exception if GetConnection was
// called on for existing source, you could use this to retrieve
public static
ExchangeCommonDataSource LookupDatasource(Guid parSourceGuid)
{
// again locking the sources lookup for thread-safety. the
// rules: 1. don't provide external access to allSources
// 2. everywhere you use allSources in the class,
// place a lock(allsources { } block around it
lock (allSources)
{
ExchangeCommonDataSource RetVal;
allSources.TryGetValue(parSourceGuid, out RetVal);
return RetVal;
}
}
// private constructor; it is private so we can rely on the
// fact that we only provide factory method(s) that insert the
// new items into the main dictionary
private ExchangeCommonDataSource(Guid SourceGuid)
{
// if you didn't want to use a factory, you could always do
// something like the following without it; note you will
// have to throw an error with this implementation because
// there's no way to recover.
//lock (allSources)
//{
// ExchangeCommonDataSource Existing;
// ExchangeCommonDataSource.allSources.
// TryGetValue(parSourceGuid, out Existing);
// if (Existing != null)
// throw new Exception("Requested duplicate source!");
//}
// ... initialize ...
}
}
now to access, the client just needs to have some sort of key to access the data:
example: frmClientClass.cs
public partial class frmClientClass
{
ExchangeCommonDataSource myDataSource = null;
public void InitializeSource(Guid parSourceGuid)
{
myDataSource = ExchangeCommonDataSource.GetConnection(parSourceGuid);
}
}
I find this a generally more compelling solution that Option 1, simply because anything that has access to the class and an ID can get the data source, and because it's fairly easy to implement, and it gives automatic support for doing multiple instances of your data source class.
It has fairly low overhead, and since getting a data source is, in most cases, something that is not going to be done in tight loops (and if it were, you would have local copies, not looking them up from a dictionary every time) any small performance loss should be worth the ease of use. And, best of all, even if you start with one data source, you can easily extend your application to more without having to rewrite any code or go to any further effort.
For instance, a very quick way to use this assuming you only have one data source would be just to use a known value for your Dictionary key, and then you just can hard code that in your second for for now. So, for the example, you could just have the empty GUID as your key, and use that for both your forms. i.e. the Main Form or your first data form would call the create method with Guid.Empty to create the data initially, and then you can just use that to access it when the time comes to open your second form.
Option 3: The 'Singleton' Pattern Class
Okay, I'm not going to spend much time or write code for this one, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. It's very similar to option 2, except, instead of having a static Dictionary to look up multiple data sources, you create a class that has one instance of the class stored in a static property, and you prevent (via exception) any attempts to create more classes. Then, you set all constructors to private, have them throw exceptions if the static variable already contains an object, and you create a getInstance() method which returns the single instance of the class, creating it if it's null.
Now, there are some little thread-safety trickiness issues with this that you will need to understand to write a traditional singleton, so be sure to understand those (there are questions on StackOverflow dealing with the issue). If you don't need any particular knowledge to construct the instance of the class, you can avoid the issues by simply initializing the variable where you declare it e.g. static MyClass theInstance = new MyClass();, and I highly recommend doing that if you do ever use one.
I have used Singletons in the (fairly distant) past, and it's not that they don't occasionally have their uses, especially in embedded systems. But, this is not an embedded system, and almost every time I used a Singleton in a GUI application, I regretted doing it because I ended up eventually re-writing it into something that would allow multiple instances. If you really just need one copy, all you have to do is put a member variable in the class that uses it, say, your main form, and make sure that you don't ever create but one. Doing this, you could even use the pattern by setting a static flag in the class that you can trigger an exception on; set it to true when you first create the object, and then if that's true you can throw your exception.
Anyway, my personal first rule for when to write a singleton is: don't do it unless you are certain you will never need more than one. If it passes that one, then the second rule is: you are wrong, there is a way it could happen, so just write it as a normal class and handle the singleton-ness of it in some other way. :) Seriously though, the real rule is, just don't do it unless you have get some a very solid reason or a significant benefit from doing it.
Oh, and to reiterate: it's very possible to accomplish the pattern of singleton, without writing the canonical singleton class. The pattern is fine, just do it in a way that when that need for a second instance of that class comes along, there is a very low cost to eliminate the pattern.
Option 4: A Separate Class
Option 4 is very similar to Option 2, but implemented in a second class. (In fact, if you ever think you might have multiple sources of data, it would be worthwhile to just start here, although it's a little more time to set up initially.) Instead of having your static items as members of that class, implement another class that has something like them and provides access. This is a way to decouple the class itself from the creating of it. For example, if you were writing a library, and you wanted to provide several different types of data source, you could implement a base class and then derive your other objects from the base class, and then provide creation mechanisms via a class that gives factory methods to create the different kinds.
In a situation like this you very well may not even want whatever is using your data source to have to know anything about the implementation of the data source classes at all, and only go through the base interface, and this provides an easy way to do that. If you had to write it all as base class static members, then you would be forcing a rewrite of the base every time you derived a new class, and it would also be forcing the base to know something about the derived classes, each of which is, in general, something to avoid. In other words, it's not that it's never useful, but don't do it without very good reason, and don't do it without understanding the implications.
example: code for external class
InfostoreBase.cs
// our data source base class; could do interface instead like:
// public interface IInfostoreBase
public abstract class InfostoreBase
{
public abstract int Information { get; set; }
public abstract string NameOfItem { get; set; }
public abstract decimal Cost { get; set; }
// ... etc ...
}
InfostoreEnterprise.cs
public class InfostoreHomeEdition :
InfostoreBase
{
public override int Information { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public override string NameOfItem { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public override decimal Cost { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public void SetFeatures(string parSomething) { /* ... */ }
}
InfostoreHomeEdition.cs
public class InfostoreEnterpriseEdition :
InfostoreBase
{
public override int Information { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public override string NameOfItem{ get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public override decimal Cost { get { /* ... */ } set { /* ... */ }}
public void SetBaseDiscount(decimal parSomethingElse) { /* ... */ }
}
InfostoreProvider.cs
public class InfostoreProvider
{
static Dictionary<Guid, InfostoreBase> allSources =
new Dictionary<Guid,InfostoreBase>();
public static InfostoreBase
GetHomeConnection(Guid CustomerKey, string HomeFeatures)
{
lock (allSources)
{
InfostoreBase RetVal;
if (!ValidHomeKey(CustomerKey))
throw new
InvalidKeyException("not valid for Home Edition");
allSources.TryGetValue(CustomerKey, out RetVal);
if (RetVal == null)
{
RetVal = new InfostoreHomeEdition();
allSources.Add(CustomerKey, RetVal);
}
var ActualVersion = (InfostoreHomeEdition) RetVal;
RetVal.SetFeatures(HomeFeatures);
return RetVal;
}
}
public static InfostoreBase
GetEnterpriseConnection(Guid CustomerKey, decimal BaseDiscount)
{
lock (allSources)
{
InfostoreBase RetVal;
if (!ValidEnterpriseKey(CustomerKey))
throw new
InvalidKeyException("not valid for Enterprise Edition");
allSources.TryGetValue(CustomerKey, out RetVal);
if (RetVal == null)
{
RetVal = new InfostoreHomeEdition();
allSources.Add(CustomerKey, RetVal);
}
var ActualVersion = (InfostoreEnterpriseEdition) RetVal;
RetVal.SetBaseDiscount(CostBase);
return RetVal;
}
}
}
code in client class
private InfostoreBase myConnectionSource;
private void Initialize()
{
// ...
myConnectionSource =
InfostoreProvider.GetConnection(
myKey, isEnterprise, myData
);
//...
}
Closing
I think that covers a very good range of possible solutions; none of them is particularly hard to implement, and each has its own benefits and disadvantages. In general I would go for Option 2 or Option 4, but [broken record] it always depends on your exact situation. I think it would be fairly easy to use extend these to handle lots of different situations. And of course if there are any problems, just let me know.

Another possible way to handle this would be to create some interfaces to represent the role of data provider and data receiver, and then you would implement those interfaces on your form. It would be very similar to doing it with a common data source, but instead of running things through an object, you would implement the interfaces and the data can go directly where it is needed. It may be a bit more efficient that doing it through a DataSource, although it's hard to say without knowing all the specifics, but if you are really transferring loads of data putting it through a separate datasource could cost you some efficiency, especially if you never have a need for all the data in one spot.
In the example code here I'm showing what it would look like if you implemented your own event args for different types of data, this also could be used in a common data source for the events if you wanted to be able to have a little more granularity over what got sent when. (Please keep in mind I've typed this all in on the webpage without trying to compile it; this is supposed to give you the idea of how to do it, but its possible (I would estimate 100% change) that I didn't get everything in perfectly. :D)
public class FirstDataKindEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public FirstDataKindEventArgs(int parID, string parName, string parOtherInfo)
{
Id = parId;
Name = parName;
OtherInfo = parOtherInfo;
}
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string OtherInfo { get; set; }
}
// plus other event arg definitions
public interface IExchangeDataProvider
{
event EventHandler<FirstDataKindEventArgs> FirstDataKindReceived;
event EventHandler<SecondDataKindEventArgs> SecondDataKindReceived;
event EventHandler<ThirdDataKindEventArgs> ThirdDataKindReceived;
}
public interface IExchangeDataReceiver
{
void ConnectDataProvider(IExchangeDataProvider Provider);
}
then in your data providing form you would implement the interface:
public partial class MyProvidingForm : System.Windows.Forms.Form, IExchangeDataProvider
{
// normal form stuff
// ...
#region IExchangeDataProvider
public event EventHandler<FirstDataKindEventArgs> FirstDataKindReceived;
public event EventHandler<SecondDataKindEventArgs> SecondDataKindReceived;
public event EventHandler<ThirdDataKindEventArgs> ThirdDataKindReceived;
public void FireDataReceived(EventArgs Data)
{
FirstDataKindEventArgs FirstKindData = Data as FirstDataKindEventArgs;
if (FirstDataKindEventArgs != null)
if (FirstDataKindReceived != null)
FirstDataKindReceived(FirstKindData);
//... etc.
}
public void GotSomeDataOfTheFirstKind(int TheID, string SomeName, string Other)
{
FirstDataKindEventArgs eArgs =
new FirstDataKindEventArgs(TheId, SomeName, Other);
FireDataReceived(eArgs);
}
and in your receiver form(s) or other classes you wish to receive data:
public partial class FirstDataKindReceivingForm :
System.Windows.Forms.Form,
IExchangeDataReceiver
{
// usual form stuff
// ...
private IExchangeDataProvider myDataProvider;
public void ConnectDataProvider(IExchangeDataProvider Provider)
{
myDataProvider = Provider;
myDataProvider.FirstDataKindReceived +=
new EventHandler<FirstDataKindEventArgs>(
HandleFirstKindOfDataReceived
);
}
private void HandleFirstKindOfDataRecieved (
object sender, FirstDataKindEventArgs
)
{
// do whatever with data
}
}
#endregion
}
and so forth.

edit Form2 's constructor, so that you can pass some values from Form1 while running a new Form2 with .Show or .ShowDialog
Form2 myForm = new Form2(value1, value2, value3 ...);
And on Form2.cs you shall convert (or add a new one) public Form2() to public Form2(var value1, var value 2...)
If you have to send to Form2 continuously data, you may use a shared memory or shared data file.

The answer in the db forum by Mahrous seems to be the simplest http://www.daniweb.com/software-development/csharp/threads/126879/617436#post617436
Some of the other solutions are also valid and may be appropriate depending on the design of the applicaiton.

Related

For my project purpose I need to send metrics to AWS.
I have main class called SendingMetrics.
private CPUMetric _cpuMetric;
private RAMMetric _ramMetric;
private HDDMetric _hddMetric;
private CloudWatchClient _cloudWatchClient(); //AWS Client which contains method Send() that sends metrics to AWS
public SendingMetrics()
{
_cpuMetric = new CPUMetric();
_ramMetric = new RAMMetric();
_hddMetric = new HDDMetric();
_cloudwatchClient = new CloudwatchClient();
InitializeTimer();
}
private void InitializeTimer()
{
//here I initialize Timer object which will call method SendMetrics() each 60 seconds.
}
private void SendMetrics()
{
SendCPUMetric();
SendRAMMetric();
SendHDDMetric();
}
private void SendCPUMetric()
{
_cloudwatchClient.Send("CPU_Metric", _cpuMetric.GetValue());
}
private void SendRAMMetric()
{
_cloudwatchClient.Send("RAM_Metric", _ramMetric.GetValue());
}
private void SendHDDMetric()
{
_cloudwatchClient.Send("HDD_Metric", _hddMetric.GetValue());
}
Also I have CPUMetric, RAMMetric and HDDMetric classes that looks pretty much similar so I will just show code of one class.
internal sealed class CPUMetric
{
private int _cpuThreshold;
public CPUMetric()
{
_cpuThreshold = 95;
}
public int GetValue()
{
var currentCpuLoad = ... //logic for getting machine CPU load
if(currentCpuLoad > _cpuThreshold)
{
return 1;
}
else
{
return 0;
}
}
}
So the problem I have is that clean coding is not satisfied in my example. I have 3 metrics to send and if I need to introduce new metric I will need to create new class, initialize it in SendingMetrics class and modify that class and that is not what I want. I want to satisfy Open Closed principle, so it is open for extensions but closed for modifications.
What is the right way to do it? I would move those send methods (SendCPUMetric, SendRAMMetric, SendHDDMetric) to corresponding classes (SendCPUMetric method to CPUMetric class, SendRAMMEtric to RAMMetric, etc) but how to modfy SendingMetrics class so it is closed for modifications and if I need to add new metric to not change that class.

In object oriented languages like C# the Open Closed Principle (OCP) is usually achieved by using the concept of polymorphism. That is that objects of the same kind react different to one and the same message. Looking at your class "SendingMetrics" it's obvious that the class works with different types of "Metrics". The good thing is that your class "SendingMetrics" talks to a all types of metrics in the same way by sending the message "getData". Hence you can introduce a new abstraction by creating an Interface "IMetric" that is implemented by the concrete types of metrics. That way you decouple your "SendingMetrics" class from the concrete metric types wich means the class does not know about the specific metric types. It only knows IMetric and treats them all in the same way wich makes it possible to add any new collaborator (type of metric) that implements the IMetric interface (open for extension) without the need to change the "SendingMetrics" class (closed for modification). This also requires that the objects of the different types of metrics are not created within the "SendingMetrics" class but e.g. by a factory or outside of the class and being injected as IMetrics.
In addition to using inheritance to enable polymorphism and achiving OCP by introducing the interface IMetric you can also use inheritance to remove redundancy. Which means you can introduce an abstract base class for all metric types that implements common behaviour that is used by all types of metrics.

Your design is almost correct. You got 3 data retriever and 1 data sender. So it's easy to add more metric (more retriever) (open for extensions) without affecting current metrics (closed for modifications), you just need a bit more refactor to reduce duplicated code.
Instead of have 3 metrics classes look very similar. Only below line is different
var currentCpuLoad = ... //logic for getting machine CPU load
You can create a generic metric like this
internal interface IGetMetric
{
int GetData();
}
internal sealed class Metric
{
private int _threshold;
private IGetMetric _getDataService;
public Metric(IGetMetric getDataService)
{
_cpuThreshold = 95;
_getDataService = getDataService;
}
public int GetValue()
{
var currentCpuLoad = _getDataService.GetData();
if(currentCpuLoad > _cpuThreshold)
{
return 1;
}
else
{
return 0;
}
}
}
Then just create 3 GetMetric classes to implement that interface. This is just 1 way to reduce the code duplication. You can also use inheritance (but I don't like inheritance). Or you can use a Func param.
UPDATED: added class to get CPU metric
internal class CPUMetricService : IGetMetric
{
public int GetData() { return ....; }
}
internal class RAMMetricService : IGetMetric
{
public int GetData() { return ....; }
}
public class AllMetrics
{
private List<Metric> _metrics = new List<Metric>()
{
new Metric(new CPUMetricService());
new Metric(new RAMMetricService());
}
public void SendMetrics()
{
_metrics.ForEach(m => ....);
}
}

I have an interface:
interface ISqlite
{
void insert();
void update();
void delete();
void select();
}
And custom service class:
class SqliteService
{
public SQLiteDatabase driver;
public SqliteService() {
SqliteConnection(new SQLiteDatabase());
}
public void SqliteConnection(SQLiteDatabase driver)
{
this.driver = driver;
}
public void select(ISqlite select) {
select.select();
}
public void insert(ISqlite insert) {
insert.insert();
}
public void delete(ISqlite delete)
{
delete.delete();
}
}
And last class Pacients that realizes ISqlite interface:
class Pacients: ISqlite
{
public List<ClientJson> pacients;
public Pacients() {
this.pacients = new List<ClientJson>();
}
public void add(ClientJson data) {
this.pacients.Add(data);
}
public void insert()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
/* Others methos from interface */
}
I try to use my code like as:
/* Create instance of service class */
SqliteService serviceSqlite = new SqliteService();
/* Create instance of class */
Pacients pacient = new Pacients();
pacient.add(client);
serviceSqlite.insert(pacient);
As you can see above I send object pacient that realizes interface ISqlite to service. It means that will be called method insert from object pacient.
Problem is that I dont understand how to add data in this method using external class: SQLiteDatabase()? How to get access to this.driver in service class from object pacient?
Edit 1
I think I must move instance of connection new SQLiteDatabase() to db inside Pacients class is not it?

Generally speaking, I would favor a solution where the data objects themselves don't know anything about how they're stored, i.e. they have no knowledge of the class that communicates with the database. Many ORMs do just that.
Of course it might not be easy depending on the specifics of your situation... Try to examine what your methods on each object actually need; generally speaking they need the values of properties, and what column each property corresponds to, right? So any external class can do this if it knows these bits of information. You can specify the name of the column with a custom attribute on each property (and if the attribute isn't there, the column must have the same name as the property).
And again, this is the most basic thing that ORMs (Object Relational Mappers) do, and in addition they also manage more complicated things like relationships between objects/tables. I'm sure there are many ORMs that work with SqlLite. If you're OK with taking the time to learn the specifics of an ORM, that's what I would recommend using - although they're not silver bullets and will never satisfy all possible requirements, they are in my opinion perfect for automating the most common day to day things.
More to the point of the question, you can of course make it work like that if you pass the SQLiteDatabase object to the methods, or keep it in a private field and require it in the constructor or otherwise make sure that it's available when you need it; there's no other simple solution I can think of. And like you pointed out, it implies a certain degree of coupling.

You can change the signature of interface's methods to pass an SQLiteDatabase object.
interface ISqlite
{
void insert(SQLiteDatabase driver);
void update(SQLiteDatabase driver);
void delete(SQLiteDatabase driver);
void select(SQLiteDatabase driver);
}
Example call from the service:
public void insert(ISqlite insert)
{
insert.insert(driver);
}
I think you can figure out the rest by yourself.

I'm trying to model a production system with "facility" as Class and some subclasses down to "Activity". The facility has a name as only parameter (at the moment), and I'd like to create an instance of the class reading the name as an input from a textbox. Since "activity" is inherit the properties from it's "parent classes" I'll create an instance of the class "activity" and not it's parent.
The problem is that I don't know where to create the class and how to pass it so that when I add the first subclass "Workstation" I can edit the properties of the same "activity" I created earlier.
I don't really have any code to add at this point unfortunately, but please tell me if there's anything special you'd like to see and I'll try to add it to the post.
And by the way, it's in the shape of a WinForm application with a GUI I'm trying to do this.

There are a couple things to note here. First, you'll want to use the Composite pattern to encapsulate the relationships between your classes. (For those who don't understand the OP's type hierarchy, it does make perfect sense in a factory context. There are many activities going on, which can be grouped into workstations and at a higher level into facilities.)
So, you should probably have a base Activity class (that supports the Composite pattern by exposing a collection of child activities), and then your "levels" (like Facility and Workstation) will inherit from Activity. Each of these classes will have unique properties.
The following classes should be created in their respective files, e.g. Activity.cs, Factory.cs, Workstation.cs:
class Activity
{
// An attribute that every Activity may need: a displayable name.
// This might be useful if you have a TreeView, e.g., showing all the activities.
public string Name { get; private set; }
// Every Activity could have child activities - this is the Composite pattern.
// You can loop through these to navigate through the hierarchy of your data.
// (This is often done using recursion; see example below with GetAllWorkstations().)
public List<Activity> ChildActivities { get; private set; }
public Activity()
{
ChildActivities = new List<Activity>();
}
public override string ToString() { return Name; }
}
class Factory : Activity
{
public string City { get; private set; }
public string Address { get; private set; }
}
class Workstation : Activity
{
public string WorkstationNumber { get; private set; }
}
The responsibility of loading your model then has to be handled somewhere. A good place to do it is in your main form. For example, you might write code like this:
class MainForm : Form
{
private readonly List<Factory> topLevelFactoryActivities;
public MainForm()
{
// ... other code
topLevelFactoryActivities = LoadTopLevelFactoryActivities();
}
private IEnumerable<Factory> LoadTopLevelFactoryActivities()
{
var factories = new List<Factory>();
// TODO: Load the factories, e.g. from a database or a file.
// You can load all the child objects for each factory here as well,
// or wait until later ("lazy-loading") if you want to.
// NOTE: If this becomes complex, you can move the LoadTopLevelFactoryActivities()
// method to its own class, which then becomes your "data access layer" (DAL).
return factories;
}
}
Now, if you want to find all the workstations that are part of a particular factory, you would write a method like the following on the Factory class:
class Factory : Activity
{
// ... other code
public IEnumerable<Workstation> GetAllWorkstations()
{
return GetWorkstationsRecursive(this);
}
private IEnumerable<Workstation> WorkstationsIn(Activity parentActivity)
{
foreach (var workstation in parentActivity.ChildActivities.OfType<Workstation>)
{
// Uses a C# feature called 'iterators' - really powerful!
yield return workstation;
}
foreach (var childActivity in parentActivity.ChildActivities)
{
// Using recursion to go down the hierarchy
foreach (var workstation in WorkstationsIn(childActivity))
{
yield return workstation;
}
}
}
}
You would call it like so, e.g. in your main form:
class MainForm : Form
{
// ... other code
public MainForm()
{
// ... other code
// Assume this is assigned to the factory that you want to get all the workstations for
Factory myFactory;
var workstations = myFactory.GetAllWorkstations();
// Now you can use 'workstations' as the items source for a list, for example.
}
}
As an example use case, you might want to show a second form (that belongs to the main form) which shows a list of all the workstations. (In practice you probably shouldn't create too many windows; prefer building a nonoverlapping layout. But just to show how you might pass the model instances around...)
class WorkstationListForm : Form
{
private IEnumerable<Workstation> workstations;
public WorkstationListForm(IEnumerable<Workstation> workstations)
{
this.workstations = workstations;
//TODO: You can now use 'workstations' as the ItemsSource of a list view in this form.
}
}
You could, of course, make topLevelFactoryActivities public on your MainForm and pass the variable this of the MainForm to the WorkstationListForm constructor instead. Then you could access the member on MainForm like this:
public WorkstationListForm(MainForm mainForm)
{
var topLevelFactoryActivities = mainForm.topLevelFactoryActivities;
// Now WorkstationListForm has full access to all the data on MainForm. This may or
// may not be helpful (it's usually best to minimize sharing and public fields).
}
Second, you'll want to use a proper separation between your view (user interface code/classes) and your model (the Activity hierarchy).
Third, if there's going to be any kind of live data being pushed to the user interface then you'll need a databinding mechanism to automatically update the view whenever the model changes.
In general, #2 & #3 are popularly addressed via the Model-View-ViewModel pattern. There is an excellent tutorial here for building an MVVM app using WinForms/C#.
That should get you started, at least. Also see an answer to a similar question. (Sorry about promoting my own answer, but I don't want to type out the whole example twice. Please forgive me. :))

I'm developing a program that scrapes content from various online archives, but am new to OOP. The way I believe would work best would be to have a parent class that specifies the shared variables and methods, then a child class for each archive which then contains the specific methods for grabbing info from that particular site, such as GrabStoryVariables() existing in each child class to accommodate the individual needs of that archive. The program takes a URL in a textbox, and then from there it will determine using the URL which child class to instantiate.
The problem I'm having is figuring out how to create the child class object and make it accessible to the entire program. For example, to create an instance of FanFictionAuthors : FanBook:
private void btnGetInfo(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
CreateBook();
}
private void CreateBook()
{
if (addressBar.Text.Contains("fanficauthors.net"))
{
FanFictionAuthors myBook = new FanFictionAuthors();
}
return;
}
The scope of myBook is just the CreateBook() function, so this approach won't do the trick. Any suggestions on the best way to handle this issue? I'm using this as an approach to better learn programming, so the "correct" way is what I'm trying to figure out, whatever that is.
Edit: The specific function of the program is to take a provided URL for an online story from fanfiction.net, fictionpress.com, or one of any number of other online story archives. There are a set of shared attributes each story will have, such as title, number of chapters, length in words, chapter titles, and the actual content of the story. The program compiles all of this to create a single html document (later to be expanded to allow for different ebook formats) rather than a bunch of small individual chapter files.
With that in mind, the only parts that should differ between each archive are the methods for grabbing the variables from the particular archive and how to iterate between the chapters based on the archive's function for that.
Currently what I'm doing is just creating a myBook object immediately upon launching the main form, then creating a different method name for the functions that grab the variables and do the iteration. As I add more archives, however, this becomes more complicated. What I originally wanted to do was to just cast the myBook to the individual archive types (FanFictionAuthors in this case) to grab the ability to use their specific functions. Looking online, it appears casting from parent to child isn't easy nor recommended, so I'm not sure how else to approach this.
Here's the GitHub link for the project. This version is slightly out of date, but lets you see how I'm currently approaching this: https://github.com/benroth/fBook

Create a super class where you common attributes and methods in there:
public class FanBook
{
// use a common constructor
public FanBook(string url)
{
grabHtml(url);
// ...
}
protected string grabHtml(string address) { // SNIP }
protected void CreateStoryHeader() { // SNIP }
// other common methods which are the same for every subclass (maybe BuildToc, GetStory, etc.)
// maybe if you want some easy access to attributes, you could add a dictionary
public void Dictionary<string, string> Attributes;
// Then use abstract methods to define methods that are different for subclasses
protected abstract void GrabStoryVariables();
protected abstract void GenerateStoryInfo();
}
Then create a subclass that derives from Book:
public class FFNETBook : FanBook {
// FFNETBook constructor to call contructor from FanBook too
public FFNETBook(string url) : FanBook(url) {
// specific initializations for FFNET
}
public override void GrabStoryVariables() { // special implementation for FFNET here }
public override void GenerateStoryInfo() { // special implementation for FFNET here }
}
I know OOP is hard to grasp when you don't have much experience in it. So feel free to ask questions.
If you do it right, then you would never need to cast into subclasses.
To answer the question in the comment:
You could make a class variable in the form1.cs file:
private FanBook currentBook;
private void CreateBook()
{
currentBook = new FFNETFanBook("http://...");
}
private void AnotherMethod() {
if ( currentBook != null ) {
currentBook.GrabStoryVariables();
} else {
throw new Exception("Book not initialized yet.");
}
}

Implement an interface named IAuthors and define the Method you want
Interface IAuthors
{
//method
void authorMethod();
}
Implement the interfaces across your classes
Public Class FanFictionAuthors:IAuthors
{
public void authorMethod()
{
//fanfiction specific action
}
}
Public class SciFiAuthors:IAuthors
{
public void authorMethod()
{
//scifiauthor specific action
}
}
Now make the following changes in your existing code
private void btnGetInfo(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
IAuthors auth=CreateBook();//Use a Interface ref
auth.authorMethod();//Runtime will decide which authorMethod to call depending
//on the object returned.
}
//Note that i am returning the Interface type instead of the void
private IAuthors CreateBook()
{
if (addressBar.Text.Contains("fanficauthors.net"))
{
return new FanFictionAuthors();//Return your object
}elseif(addressBar.Text.Contains("scificauthors.net"))
{
return new SciFiAuthors();//Return your object
}
}

You could create a list in the parent and add childs to that list. Then you can akso walk that list to see if childs are finished and such.
ChildList.Add(new fan....)

I'm currently working on a C# program that creates a List, of object Task, the object Task is a base class and many other inherit from it. What I want to is compare the type of one of the object within said list to see which form should be opened in order to edit it.
This is the code I have already created.
private void itemEdit_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int edi = taskNameBox.SelectedIndex;
Task checkTask = todoList.ElementAt(edi);
if(checkTask.GetType is Note)
{
noteBuilder editNote = new noteBuilder(todoList);
editNote.Show();
}
else if(checkTask.GetType is extendedTask)
{
extendedTaskBuilder editTask = new extendedTaskBuilder(todoList);
editTask.Show();
}
else if(checkTask.GetType is Reminder)
{
reminderBuilder editReminder = new reminderBuilder(todoList);
editReminder.Show();
}
else if (checkTask.GetType is Appointment)
{
appointmentBuilder editAppointment = new appointmentBuilder(todoList);
editAppointment.Show();
}
}
On a secondary note would it be easier if instead of passing the list between the forms and generating a new object of the form that display information that I instead pass a single object between forms and just update the form every time a new element is added to the list.
Many thanks

Have you tried checking like this:
if (checkTask is Note)
{
}
...

Have you considered creating a base class for all types you are now switching between and call a virtual (abstract) method?
Put all code now in the if in the overridden abstract method.
Advantages:
- The intelligence of the switch is within the classes where it belongs.
- When a new type is added you get a compiler error to also add this feature to the new type.

I suggest that instead of doing that series of ‘if’ clauses, you use inheritance to achieve what ou need. First you create a virtual method in your base class. A virtual method means it won't have any implementation in the base class, only the declaration:
public class Task
{
(...)
public virtual void ShowEditForm(IList todoList);
(...)
}
Then you create the child class methods (I'm assuming the todoList object is a IList, but just change it if it is not).
public class Note: Task
{
(...)
public override void ShowEditForm(IList todoList)
{
(new noteBuilder(taskToEdit)).Show();
}
(...)
}
public class Reminder: Task
{
(...)
public override void ShowEditForm(IList todoList)
{
(new reminderBuilder(taskToEdit)).Show();
}
(...)
}
I didn't write all the classes, but I think you've got the idea. To call the method, you just call the method from Task class, and the right method will be executed:
int edi = taskNameBox.SelectedIndex;
Task checkTask = todoList.ElementAt(edi);
checkTask.ShowEditForm(todoList);
This way, when you want to create new types of Task, you just have to create the child class, with the proper method, and the inheritance system will do the rest.
One more thing, the override keyword in the child method declaration is important, because it says to the compiler that this method should be called even if you call it from the BaseClass.

First, to your second note. What you are talking about doing is having a global object that all forms refer to in some parent. That can work, however you will need to make sure there is some mechanism in place that makes sure all of the forms are synchronized when one changes, and this can get messy and a bit of a mess to maintain. I am not necessarily advocating against it per say, but just adding words of caution when considering it :)
As to your posted code, it would probably be better to turn this into a Strategy Pattern approach, where all forms inherit from a base class/interface which has a Show method. Then all you need to do is call checkTask.Show(todoList);. If you do not want that coming from the Task, then you could have your forms all inherit from the above base and you could use a factory pattern that takes in the Task and list and returns the appropriate form on which you simply call form.Show();

Code like this is difficult to maintain, you are probably better off abstracting this out, like so (assuming Task is not the one included in .net):
public interface IBuilder
{
void Show();
}
public abstract class Task
{
// ...
public abstract IBuilder GetBuilder(TaskList todoList);
// ...
}
public class Note : Task
{
public override IBuilder GetBuilder(TaskList todoList)
{
return new noteBuilder(todoList);
}
// ...
}
// etc.
private void itemEdit_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int edi = taskNameBox.SelectedIndex;
Task checkTask = todoList.ElementAt(edi);
IBuilder builder = checkTask.GetBuilder(todoList);
builder.Show();
}
Alternately, you can use an injection pattern:
public abstract class Task
{
protected Task(Func<TaskList, IBuilder> builderStrategy)
{
_builderStrategy = builderStrategy;
}
public IBuilder GetBuilder(TaskList todoList))
{
return _builderStrategy(todolist);
}
}
public class Note : Task
{
public Note(Func<TaskList, IBuilder> builderStrategy) : base(builderStrategy) {}
}
// ...
note = new Note(x => return new noteBuilder(x));