We Keep Coding

On setting any property of class A, set property of abstract class B (which is inherited from class A)

public abstract class ANetworkedComponent
{
public bool Dirty { get; set; } = false;
}
public class Collider: ANetworkedComponent
{
public Vector2 Velocity { get; set; }
}
I need to set Dirty to true every time a property of a class that inherits from ANetworkedComponent is modified. For example, when
var collider = new Collider();
collider.Velocity = new Vector(10, 10);
is executed, then collider.Dirty should be set to true.
Modifying the properties manually is not an option because there are too many properties and it's not DRY. Are there other options?

It only looks like a DRY violation because you only have one Dirty Property for the whole class. If you had a separate IsPropertyDirty for each property, you wouldn't say that was a DRY violation.
The fastest (execution time-wise), is going to be properties you write yourself. But as you have noted, it is the most developer time consuming, so I would only do that if performance profiling indicates it.
Another quick option would be "Aspect Oriented Programming". There are libraries for C#, like PostSharp, that allow you to add 'aspects' to classes. For example, you could have PostSharp auto-implement INotifyPropertyChanged on your classes for you, which you could then use to listen for property changes and set Dirty. I'm sure you can also add your own aspect to change the Dirty state under various conditions.
PostSharp is in a class of AOP libraries that weaves code into your assemblies during compilation. Typically you decorate classes, properties, and methods with attributes and that tells PostSharp what behaviors to implement automatically in your code. There are also libraries that support runtime aspects (many IOC containers support this), and although performance won't match those of a code generated AOP, they are quite serviceable.

You could create a generic property with a virtual field inside that uses reflection to change the Dirty flag on the set of that inner property

Can an AttributeClass determine the property it has been applied to [duplicate]

I'm creating a custom attribute in C# and I want to do different things based on whether the attribute is applied to a method versus a property. At first I was going to do new StackTrace().GetFrame(1).GetMethod() in my custom attribute constructor to see what method called the attribute constructor, but now I'm unsure what that will give me. What if the attribute was applied to a property? Would GetMethod() return a MethodBase instance for that property? Is there a different way of getting the member to which an attribute was applied in C#?
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method | AttributeTargets.Property,
AllowMultiple = true)]
public class MyCustomAttribute : Attribute
Update: okay, I might have been asking the wrong question. From within a custom attribute class, how do I get the member (or the class containing the member) to which my custom attribute was applied? Aaronaught suggested against walking up the stack to find the class member to which my attribute was applied, but how else would I get this information from within the constructor of my attribute?

Attributes provide metadata and don't know anything about the thing (class, member, etc.) they are decorating. On the other hand, the thing being decorated can ask for the attributes it is decorated with.
If you must know the type of the thing being decorated you will need to explicitly pass it to your attribute in its constructor.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method | AttributeTargets.Property,
AllowMultiple = true)]
public class MyCustomAttribute : Attribute
{
Type type;
public MyCustomAttribute(Type type)
{
this.type = type;
}
}

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion with respect to how the stack frames and methods work, here is a simple demonstration:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass c = new MyClass();
c.Name = "MyTest";
Console.ReadLine();
}
class MyClass
{
private string name;
void TestMethod()
{
StackTrace st = new StackTrace();
StackFrame currentFrame = st.GetFrame(1);
MethodBase method = currentFrame.GetMethod();
Console.WriteLine(method.Name);
}
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
set
{
TestMethod();
name = value;
}
}
}
The output of this program will be:
set_Name
Properties in C# are a form of syntactic sugar. They compile down to getter and setter methods in the IL, and it's possible that some .NET languages might not even recognize them as properties - property resolution is done entirely by convention, there aren't really any rules in the IL spec.
Now, let's say for the moment that you had a really good reason for a program to want to examine its own stack (and there are precious few practical reasons to do so). Why in the world would you want it to behave differently for properties and methods?
The whole rationale behind attributes is that they are a kind of metadata. If you want a different behaviour, code it into the attribute. If an attribute can mean two different things depending on whether it's applied to a method or property - then you should have two attributes. Set the target on the first to AttributeTargets.Method and the second to AttributeTargets.Property. Simple.
But once again, walking your own stack to pick up some attributes from the calling method is dangerous at best. In a way, you are freezing your program's design, making it far more difficult for anybody to extend or refactor. This is not the way attributes are normally used. A more appropriate example, would be something like a validation attribute:
public class Customer
{
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Then your validator code, which knows nothing about the actual entity being passed in, can do this:
public void Validate(object o)
{
Type t = o.GetType();
foreach (var prop in
t.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public))
{
if (Attribute.IsDefined(prop, typeof(RequiredAttribute)))
{
object value = prop.GetValue(o, null);
if (value == null)
throw new RequiredFieldException(prop.Name);
}
}
}
In other words, you're examining the attributes of an instance that was given to you but which you don't necessarily know anything about the type of. XML attributes, Data Contract attributes, even Attribute attributes - almost all attributes in the .NET Framework are used this way, to implement some functionality that is dynamic with respect to the type of an instance but not with respect to the state of the program or what happens to be on the stack. It is very unlikely that you are actually in control of this at the point where you create the stack trace.
So I'm going to recommend again that you don't use the stack-walking approach unless you have an extremely good reason to do so which you haven't told us about yet. Otherwise you are likely to find yourself in a world of hurt.
If you absolutely must (don't say we didn't warn you), then use two attributes, one that can apply to methods and one that can apply to properties. I think you'll find that to be much easier to work with than a single super-attribute.

GetMethod will always return you the function name. If it is a property, you will get either get_PropertyName or set_PropertyName.
A property is basically a type of method, so when you implement a property, the compiler creates two separate functions in the resulting MSIL, a get_ and a a set_ methods. This is why in the stack trace you receive these names.

custom attributes are activated by some code calling the GetCustomAttributes method on the ICustomAttributeProvider (reflection object) that represents the location where the attribute is applied. So in the case of a property, some code would obtain the PropertyInfo for the property and then call GetCustomAttributes on that.
If you want to build out some validation framework you would need to write the code that inspects types & members for custom attributes. You could for example have an interface that attributes implement to participate in your validation framework. Could be as simple as the following:
public interface ICustomValidationAttribute
{
void Attach(ICustomAttributeProvider foundOn);
}
Your code could look for this inteface on (for example) a Type:
var validators = type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ICustomValidationAttribute), true);
foreach (ICustomValidationAttribute validator in validators)
{
validator.Attach(type);
}
(presumably you would walk the whole reflection graph and do this for each ICustomAttributeProvider). For an example of a similar approach in action in the .net FX you can look at WCF's 'behaviors' (IServiceBehavior, IOperationBehavior, etc).
Update: the .net FX does have a sort-of general purpose, but basically undocumented interception framework in the form of ContextBoundObject and ContextAttribute. You can search the web for some examples of using it for AOP.

Wrapping C# classes to use with polymorphism through a common interface

I've got several C# classes each with similar properties.
(They're part of an SDK and their code can’t be changed.)
Person.Name
Product.Name
Order.Name
I want to use these classes polymorphically, but they don’t implement a common interface or derive from a common base class, so that’s not possible.
To get around this, I’d like to wrap each one in another class that does implement a common interface, and wire-up each class property to its corresponding interface property.
What would be a suitable name for the wrapper classes? Wrapper, Decorator, Adaptor, Proxy? Does this pattern have a name? Is there a better approach?
(I don't want to use dynamic duck-typing or an impromptu interface.)

It looks like Adapter, because you are adapting the existing interfaces to the specific requirements.

(I don't want to use dynamic duck-typing or an impromptu interface.)
So what is wrong with a NamedObject?
public class NamedObject
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
It literally says what it is, nothing less, nothing more.

I'd stick with CodeCaster's idea, and perhaps with a dash of Func<T> for no other reason than I get withdrawal symptoms when I don't use angle brackets...
public class NamedEntity
{
public string Name { get { return _getName(); } }
private Func<string> _getName;
public NamedObject(Func<string> getName)
{
_getName = getName;
}
}
And then call thus:
var named = new[]
{
new NamedEntity(() => person.Name),
new NamedEntity(() => product.Name),
new NamedEntity(() => order.Name)
};
The added benefit with this is when the value of the property changes on the target object, it changes within the NamedEntity reference too via the Func, this means within the life span of the objects you can get away with wrapping them once. You can also do the inverse with Funcs that set values as well as get, and can adapt more properties.
I am not immediately sure what pattern this represents (if any), though I would guess Adapter pattern (which is a type of wrapper pattern). However, it could also be argued to be a Proxy pattern. Not sure really.

Maybe you can just change the namespace and keep the names of the original classes.

Technically, I think the most correct name would be Adapter, see this question.
Adapter is used when you have an abstract interface, and you want to map that interface to another object which has similar functional role, but a different interface.
You don't have abstract interface, but "similar functional role, but a different interface".

Interface: Setter without a Getter

I came across an interface recently that only defined a setter like so:
public interface IAggregationView
{
DataTable SetSiteData { set; }
}
I queried this, and it is believed that this is one of the practices advocated by Microsoft for WebPart design (for SharePoint). In fact this example is directly copied from their examples.
I see this as a bad pattern, I don't see why someone should be able to set a value, and then not be able to read it again, and I believe a setter should always be accompanied with a getter (but not necessarily the other way around).
I'm wondering if anyone can explain the benefit of only having a setter, why Microsoft might be suggesting it in this case, and if it's really a good pattern to be following?

There are two scenarios I can see where this might be reasonable:
it is not possible get the value, for example a password; however, I would replace that with a void SetPassword(string) method, personally
the API it is designed for has no requirement to ever read the value, and it is being restricted purely to expose the minimum required API
Re my first point, a Set... method may not be ideal if the consuming API is essentially an automated mapper that assigns values to properties; in that scenario properties would indeed be preferable.
Re your "I don't see why someone should be able to set a value, and then not be able to read it again" - by the same point, however, it could be argued that someone setting the value already knows the value (they set it), so they have no requirement to do this.
But yes; it is very unusual to have a set-only property.

The role of get and set in interface properties is slightly different from those in classes.
public interface IAggregationView
{
DataTable SetSiteData { set; }
}
class AggregationViewImp : IAggregationView
{
public DataTable SetSiteData { get; set; } // perfectly OK
}
The interface specifies that the property should at least have a public setter. The definition and accessibility of the getter is left to the implementing class.
So if the interface contract only needs to write, get can be left open. No need to demand a public getter.
As a consequence, you cannot really specify a read-only property in interfaces either. Only 'at least read access'.
interface IFoo
{
int Id { get; }
}
class Foo : IFoo
{
public int Id { get; set; } // protected/private set is OK too
}

I can imagine using it for (manual) dependency injection. A class may need to have a collaborator injected that it only uses internally. Of course one would normally choose to do this in the class' constructor, but there may be times when one would wish to change the collaborator at runtime.

Classes that implement the interface may add a getter. Most uses of the property may be via an implementing class, not via the interface itself. In which case most code has the ability to get and set the property. The only reason for the interface may be that there is some common code that accesses a common subset of the methods/properties of a family of classes. That code only requires the setter, not the getter. The interface documents that fact.
An interface is just a facility for declaring a group of operations that are "atomically needed" (e.g. if you need to call method A, you'll need to read property B and set property C).
So as always, it depends.

In my experiences such interfaces crop up due to some special need, not for architectural reasons. For example in ASP.NET applications people sometimes make the Global.asax generated type derive from such an interface when they want to maintain global state. Someone might create an initialization value in a separate part of the application and need to publish it to a global place.
I usually like to replace a set-only property with a SetXxx method and make the method check that it is called at most once. That way I clearly enforce "initialization style" which is much less of a smell (imho).
Certainly one cannot set to never produce such a thing but it is to be avoided and will certainly raise questions during code review.

readonly class design when a non-readonly class is already in place

I have a class that upon construction, loads it's info from a database. The info is all modifiable, and then the developer can call Save() on it to make it Save that information back to the database.
I am also creating a class that will load from the database, but won't allow any updates to it. (a read only version.) My question is, should I make a separate class and inherit, or should I just update the existing object to take a readonly parameter in the constructor, or should I make a separate class entirely?
The existing class is already used in many places in the code.
Thanks.
Update:
Firstly, there's a lot of great answers here. It would be hard to accept just one. Thanks everyone.
The main problems it seems are:
Meeting expectations based on class names and inheritance structures.
Preventing unnecessary duplicate code
There seems to be a big difference between Readable and ReadOnly. A Readonly class should probably not be inherited. But a Readable class suggests that it might also gain writeability at some point.
So after much thought, here's what I'm thinking:
public class PersonTestClass
{
public static void Test()
{
ModifiablePerson mp = new ModifiablePerson();
mp.SetName("value");
ReadOnlyPerson rop = new ReadOnlyPerson();
rop.GetName();
//ReadOnlyPerson ropFmp = (ReadOnlyPerson)mp; // not allowed.
ReadOnlyPerson ropFmp = (ReadOnlyPerson)(ReadablePerson)mp;
// above is allowed at compile time (bad), not at runtime (good).
ReadablePerson rp = mp;
}
}
public class ReadablePerson
{
protected string name;
public string GetName()
{
return name;
}
}
public sealed class ReadOnlyPerson : ReadablePerson
{
}
public class ModifiablePerson : ReadablePerson
{
public void SetName(string value)
{
name = value;
}
}
Unfortunately, I don't yet know how to do this with properties (see StriplingWarrior's answer for this done with properties), but I have a feeling it will involve the protected keyword and asymmetric property access modifiers.
Also, fortunately for me, the data that is loaded from the database does not have to be turned into reference objects, rather they are simple types. This means I don't really have to worry about people modifying the members of the ReadOnlyPerson object.
Update 2:
Note, as StriplingWarrior has suggested, downcasting can lead to problems, but this is generally true as casting a Monkey to and Animal back down to a Dog can be bad. However, it seems that even though the casting is allowed at compile time, it is not actually allowed at runtime.
A wrapper class may also do the trick, but I like this better because it avoids the problem of having to deep copy the passed in object / allow the passed in object to be modified thus modifying the wrapper class.

The Liskov Substitution Principle says that you shouldn't make your read-only class inherit from your read-write class, because consuming classes would have to be aware that they can't call the Save method on it without getting an exception.
Making the writable class extend the readable class would make more sense to me, as long as there is nothing on the readable class that indicates its object can never be persisted. For example, I wouldn't call the base class a ReadOnly[Whatever], because if you have a method that takes a ReadOnlyPerson as an argument, that method would be justified in assuming that it would be impossible for anything they do to that object to have any impact on the database, which is not necessarily true if the actual instance is a WriteablePerson.
Update
I was originally assuming that in your read-only class you only wanted to prevent people calling the Save method. Based on what I'm seeing in your answer-response to your question (which should actually be an update on your question, by the way), here's a pattern you might want to follow:
public abstract class ReadablePerson
{
public ReadablePerson(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public string Name { get; protected set; }
}
public sealed class ReadOnlyPerson : ReadablePerson
{
public ReadOnlyPerson(string name) : base(name)
{
}
}
public sealed class ModifiablePerson : ReadablePerson
{
public ModifiablePerson(string name) : base(name)
{
}
public new string Name {
get {return base.Name;}
set {base.Name = value; }
}
}
This ensures that a truly ReadOnlyPerson cannot simply be cast as a ModifiablePerson and modified. If you're willing to trust that developers won't try to down-cast arguments in this way, though, I prefer the interface-based approach in Steve and Olivier's answers.
Another option would be to make your ReadOnlyPerson just be a wrapper class for a Person object. This would necessitate more boilerplate code, but it comes in handy when you can't change the base class.
One last point, since you enjoyed learning about the Liskov Substitution Principle: By having the Person class be responsible for loading itself out of the database, you are breaking the Single-Responsibility Principle. Ideally, your Person class would have properties to represent the data that comprises a "Person," and there would be a different class (maybe a PersonRepository) that's responsible for producing a Person from the database or saving a Person to the database.
Update 2
Responding to your comments:
While you can technically answer your own question, StackOverflow is largely about getting answers from other people. That's why it won't let you accept your own answer until a certain grace period has passed. You are encouraged to refine your question and respond to comments and answers until someone has come up with an adequate solution to your initial question.
I made the ReadablePerson class abstract because it seemed like you'd only ever want to create a person that is read-only or one that is writeable. Even though both of the child classes could be considered to be a ReadablePerson, what would be the point of creating a new ReadablePerson() when you could just as easily create a new ReadOnlyPerson()? Making the class abstract requires the user to choose one of the two child classes when instantiating them.
A PersonRepository would sort of be like a factory, but the word "repository" indicates that you're actually pulling the person's information from some data source, rather than creating the person out of thin air.
In my mind, the Person class would just be a POCO, with no logic in it: just properties. The repository would be responsible for building the Person object. Rather than saying:
// This is what I think you had in mind originally
var p = new Person(personId);
... and allowing the Person object to go to the database to populate its various properties, you would say:
// This is a better separation of concerns
var p = _personRepository.GetById(personId);
The PersonRepository would then get the appropriate information out of the database and construct the Person with that data.
If you wanted to call a method that has no reason to change the person, you could protect that person from changes by converting it to a Readonly wrapper (following the pattern that the .NET libraries follow with the ReadonlyCollection<T> class). On the other hand, methods that require a writeable object could be given the Person directly:
var person = _personRepository.GetById(personId);
// Prevent GetVoteCount from changing any of the person's information
int currentVoteCount = GetVoteCount(person.AsReadOnly());
// This is allowed to modify the person. If it does, save the changes.
if(UpdatePersonDataFromLdap(person))
{
_personRepository.Save(person);
}
The benefit of using interfaces is that you're not forcing a specific class hierarchy. This will give you better flexibility in the future. For example, let's say that for the moment you write your methods like this:
GetVoteCount(ReadablePerson p);
UpdatePersonDataFromLdap(ReadWritePerson p);
... but then in two years you decide to change to the wrapper implementation. Suddenly ReadOnlyPerson is no longer a ReadablePerson, because it's a wrapper class instead of an extension of a base class. Do you change ReadablePerson to ReadOnlyPerson in all your method signatures?
Or say you decide to simplify things and just consolidate all your classes into a single Person class: now you have to change all your methods to just take Person objects. On the other hand, if you had programmed to interfaces:
GetVoteCount(IReadablePerson p);
UpdatePersonDataFromLdap(IReadWritePerson p);
... then these methods don't care what your object hierarchy looks like, as long as the objects you give them implement the interfaces they ask for. You can change your implementation hierarchy at any time without having to change these methods at all.

Definitely do not make the read-only class inherit from the writable class. Derived classes should extend and modify the capabilities of the base class; they should never take capabilities away.
You may be able to make the writable class inherit from the read-only class, but you need to do it carefully. The key question to ask is, would any consumers of the read-only class rely on the fact that it is read-only? If a consumer is counting on the values never changing, but the writable derived type is passed in and then the values are changed, that consumer could be broken.
I know it is tempting to think that because the structure of the two types (i.e. the data that they contain) is similar or identical, that one should inherit from the other. But that is often not the case. If they are being designed for significantly different use cases, they probably need to be separate classes.

A quick option might be to create an IReadablePerson (etc) interface, which contains only get properties, and does not include Save(). Then you can have your existing class implement that interface, and where you need Read-only access, have the consuming code reference the class through that interface.
In keeping with the pattern, you probably want to have a IReadWritePerson interface, as well, which would contain the setters and Save().
Edit On further thought, IWriteablePerson should probably be IReadWritePerson, since it wouldn't make much sense to have a write-only class.
Example:
public interface IReadablePerson
{
string Name { get; }
}
public interface IReadWritePerson : IReadablePerson
{
new string Name { get; set; }
void Save();
}
public class Person : IReadWritePerson
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public void Save() {}
}

The question is, "how do you want to turn a modifiable class into a read-only class by inheriting from it?"
With inheritance you can extend a class but not restrict it. Doing so by throwing exceptions would violate the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP).
The other way round, namely deriving a modifiable class from a read-only class would be OK from this point of view; however, how do you want to turn a read-only property into a read-write property? And, moreover, is it desirable to be able to substitute a modifiable object where a read-only object is expected?
However, you can do this with interfaces
interface IReadOnly
{
int MyProperty { get; }
}
interface IModifiable : IReadOnly
{
new int MyProperty { set; }
void Save();
}
This class is assignment compatible to the IReadOnly interface as well. In read-only contexts you can access it through the IReadOnly interface.
class ModifiableClass : IModifiable
{
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
public void Save()
{
...
}
}
UPDATE
I did some further investigations on the subject.
However, there is a caveat to this, I had to add a new keyword in IModifiable and you can only access the getter either directly through the ModifiableClass or through the IReadOnly interface, but not through the IModifiable interface.
I also tried to work with two interfaces IReadOnly and IWriteOnly having only a getter or a setter respectively. You can then declare an interface inheriting from both of them and no new keyword is required in front of the property (as in IModifiable). However when you try to access the property of such an object you get the compiler error Ambiguity between 'IReadOnly.MyProperty' and 'IWriteOnly.MyProperty'.
Obviously, it is not possible to synthesize a property from separate getters and setters, as I expected.

I had the same problem to solve when creating an object for user security permissions, that in certain cases must be mutable to allow high-level users to modify security settings, but normally is read-only to store the currently logged-in user's permissions information without allowing code to modify those permissions on the fly.
The pattern I came up with was to define an interface which the mutable object implements, that has read-only property getters. The mutable implementation of that interface can then be private, allowing code that directly deals with instantiating and hydrating the object to do so, but once the object is returned out of that code (as an instance of the interface) the setters are no longer accessible.
Example:
//this is what "ordinary" code uses for read-only access to user info.
public interface IUser
{
string UserName {get;}
IEnumerable<string> PermissionStrongNames {get;}
...
}
//This class is used for editing user information.
//It does not implement the interface, and so while editable it cannot be
//easily used to "fake" an IUser for authorization
public sealed class EditableUser
{
public string UserName{get;set;}
List<SecurityGroup> Groups {get;set;}
...
}
...
//this class is nested within the class responsible for login authentication,
//which returns instances as IUsers once successfully authenticated
private sealed class AuthUser:IUser
{
private readonly EditableUser user;
public AuthUser(EditableUser mutableUser) { user = mutableUser; }
public string UserName {get{return user.UserName;}}
public IEnumerable<string> PermissionNames
{
//GetPermissions is an extension method that traverses the list of nestable Groups.
get {return user.Groups.GetPermissions().Select(p=>p.StrongName);
}
...
}
A pattern like this allows you to use code you've already created in a read-write fashion, while not allowing Joe Programmer to turn a read-only instance into a mutable one. There are a few more tricks in my actual implementation, mainly dealing with persistence of the editable object (since editing user records is a secured action, an EditableUser cannot be saved with the Repository's "normal" persistence method; it instead requires calling an overload that also takes an IUser which must have sufficient permissions).
One thing you simply must understand; if it is possible for your program to edit the records in any scope, it is possible for that ability to be abused, whether intentionally or otherwise. Regular code reviews of any usage of the mutable or immutable forms of your object will be necessary to make sure other coders aren't doing anything "clever". This pattern also isn't enough to ensure that an application used by the general public is secure; if you can write an IUser implementation, so can an attacker, so you'll need some additional way to verify that your code and not an attacker's produced a particular IUser instance, and that the instance hasn't been tampered with in the interim.