I've read a number of articles including this one on the subject of Empty or 'marker' interfaces. I have concluded that I cannot use custom attributes in my case as I need to be able to include the instance of a class to another method and, as these classes have nothing in common, I have no option but to use a 'marker' interface.
As an example, I might have
public class Foo
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
}
public class Bar
{
public Guid Identifier {get;set;}
public DateTime DueDate {get;set;}
}
and I need to pass them to a method in another class and because there may be many different types that need to be passed to the method, I've defined it like this...
public void MyMethod(IMyInterface model)
{
// Do something clever here
}
And All I've had to do to make this work is to 'implement' IMyInterface on Foo and Bar.
So to the question. I now find I need to call my MyMethod() method with an anonymous type created from a LINQ statement, so I tried this ...
var data = <Some Complex LINQ>.Select(a=> new { AString = a.Value1, ADecimal = a.Value2});
MyClass.MyMethod(data);
Sadly, I get the following compile-time error:
Error 202 Cannot convert type 'AnonymousType#1' to
'IMyInterface' via a reference
conversion, boxing conversion, unboxing conversion, wrapping
conversion, or null type conversion
Now, I know I could create a local class and use that in the same way as I have my standard classes, but my requirements mean that I'm going to have a lot of these LINQ queries in my up-coming set of work so, if possible, I'd like to find a solution that allows me to use Anonymous Types.
Does anyone know of a solution or workaround for the error I'm getting?
I have an array of objects looking like this
public class ViewFilterData
{
public string Table { get; set; }
public string Field { get; set; }
public string Value { get; set; }
}
Due to calling function in separate dll, I need to pass this array as object[]. The above class is defined in both sections.
Project compiles, however when I try to cast each object in the array to above class, I get an invalidCastException, indicating that it "magically" know the originally class and refuse to cast it to the new one even though they are verbatim identical. Do I need to use reflection and create a new class marshalling over the array object by object and attribute by attribute? Or is there a simpler faster way? Thought about using scructs, however would rather not if possible.
"Unable to cast object of type 'Original.ViewFilterData' to type SeparateDLL.ViewFilterData'."
I call the function like this
var dt = oRepository.Page((object[])oDataRequest.Filters.ToArray())
and define it like this
public DataTable Page(object[] Filters)
Same name doesn't mean, they're of the same types. .NET cannot magically infer that.
for small objects, just write a quick LINQ query:
var separateDllFilters = oDataRequest.Filters.Select(of => new SeparateDLL.ViewFilterData
{
Table = of.Table,
// so on
}).ToArray();
however, if all the fields are same, (or even if they're not) you can use tools like AutoMapper to transform them easily.
typically, this is the order of solutions:
quick LINQ queries.
Extension methods to map the types.
Tools like AutoMapper
the solution you choose depends on factors like, how often you do this, how many callers need this, etc.
The above class is defined in both sections.
This is not valid in C#, each class is distinct from all other classes.
If you want to pass data between libraries you must use consistent types. The most popular method is to use a base library.
public class Customer
{
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
public struct Customer
{
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
Your second snippet is a mutable struct. That's a really bad idea, IMO - they behave oddly in various different situations, as values can be copied when you may not expect them to be.
You could create immutable structs of course, and there are times when that's appropriate - but personally I find the reference type behaviour more natural usually. With structs, you also need to worry about the fact that whatever constructors you put in place, it's always possible to set a variable to the default value - so the fields will be zero for numeric types, null for reference types etc. It's annoying to have to deal with the possibility of an invalid object everywhere, whereas with classes you can add appropriate validation to the constructor (or factory methods) to make sure that the only thing you need to worry about is a null reference.
The efficiency argument ends up tricky, as there are pros and cons on both sides, depending on exactly what you do with the objects.
To cut a long answer short (too late?) - I would use classes by default; save value types for things which are natural individual values ("an instant in time", or "an integer" for example).
Here is a link with differences between structs and classes:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288471%28VS.71%29.aspx
It claims structs are more efficient but I would think that pass by ref is more efficient then pass by value for large data.
This may be a problem:
" Although the CLR allows it, C# does
not allow structs to have a default
parameterless constructor. The reason
is that, for a value type, compilers
by default neither generate a default
constructor, nor do they generate a
call to the default constructor. So,
even if you happened to define a
default constructor, it will not be
called and that will only confuse you.
To avoid such problems, the C#
compiler disallows definition of a
default constructor by the user. And
because it doesn't generate a default
constructor, you can't initialize
fields when defining them, like:
Collapse
struct MyWrongFoo {
int x = 1; }
Remember, the compiler puts all this
initialization code into the
constructor (every constructor), and
because there's no default
constructor, you can't do the
initialization.
Now, for the fun part.. You normally
instantiate a struct like this:"
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/structs_in_csharp.aspx
POCOs and DTOs are not the same thing.
A POCO is a business object that would typically have state and behaviour.
A DTO is a lightweight object for transferring state between application layers.
I would obviously use classes for POCOs, and also for DTOs.
For a class instance to work properly, some fields should be properly initialized, what's your strategy to initialize these field, what should be given through constructor, what should be given through property?
My confusion is that, if the constructor requires a long parameter list, it's hard to use, if through properties, i tend to forget to set some properties.
What's the best practice?
You must ask yourself, if your class needs that many things to be created, perhaps it is doing too much. It's a sign that you should reconsider your design, or just how much "work" the constructor is doing.
It is true that you should not be able to create an instance with invalid state; thus the constructor should take all properties you need to be in a valid state.
To a degree, it depends on your model. For example, the ORM I use has the constructor take one parameter; an ID by which it can load all the other properties. It would be annoying if I had to pass them all in (that's the job of the ORM really; to set this object up). So in that sense, you can argue you have an "invalid" object (no properties set). But you'd be wrong; what you actually have is a "blank" or "empty" object. That's not the same as invalid.
So think carefully about what it means for your object to be "invalid". I would consider it invalid if other methods took this object, and threw an exception because something wasn't set. Use this logic to determine what needs to be in the constructor, and what can be set later (by some other process).
This is always a balancing act - you don't want to have constructors that require many parameters but you also don't want to require that a user set many properties before an object is in a valid state. Unfortunately there is no real guidance here as you must use your best judgment for the situation at hand.
Many times you may need to create a composite type which has many properties and many possible configurations (e.g. System.Web.Page). Composite types tend to have simple constructors that take little or no parameters and all values must be set through properties. Composite types are high-level types that are composed of lower-level factored (or primitive) types.
Factored types tend to be simpler, contain less state, and can be completely initialized via their constructors. Examples of factored types are System.String and System.Int32. These types are very simple and tend to be the building blocks of composite types.
If your type is a factored type then try your best to allow consumers to initialize the type completely via the constructor. If your type is a composite type then it is better to offer simple constructors with little or no parameters and require that the consumer configure the instance via property setters.
Now that .NET 3.5 allows you set any property on creation, I generally restrict any constructor with parameters to situations where the instance absolutely must have a value on creation. There really isn't any other reason to add constructor overloads with parameters IMO.
I think the best thing would be to perform validation and generally try to keep constructors with no parameters as it is often a requirement for different .NET libraries.
With validation you will have to check the object's validity, but it is pretty common thing to do. Something among the lines:
public interface IValidateable {
IEnumerable<string> Validate();
}
public class Person : IValidateable {
public string Title { get; set; }
public string First { get; set; }
public string Last { get; set; }
public Address HomeAddress { get; set; }
public Person() {
HomeAddress = new Address();
}
public IEnumerable<string> Validate() {
var errors = new List<string>();
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(First))
errors.Add("First name is required.");
// And so on...
return errors;
}
}
// Usage
var p1 = new Person();
var p2 = new Person {
First = "Dmitriy"
};
if (p1.Validate().Any()) {
// Do something with invalid object
}
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have over the course of a few projects developed a pattern for creating immutable (readonly) objects and immutable object graphs. Immutable objects carry the benefit of being 100% thread safe and can therefore be reused across threads. In my work I very often use this pattern in Web applications for configuration settings and other objects that I load and cache in memory. Cached objects should always be immutable as you want to guarantee they are not unexpectedly changed.
Now, you can of course easily design immutable objects as in the following example:
public class SampleElement
{
private Guid id;
private string name;
public SampleElement(Guid id, string name)
{
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
}
public Guid Id
{
get { return id; }
}
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
}
}
This is fine for simple classes - but for more complex classes I do not fancy the concept of passing all values through a constructor. Having setters on the properties is more desirable and your code constructing a new object gets easier to read.
So how do you create immutable objects with setters?
Well, in my pattern objects start out as being fully mutable until you freeze them with a single method call. Once an object is frozen it will stay immutable forever - it cannot be turned into a mutable object again. If you need a mutable version of the object, you simply clone it.
Ok, now on to some code. I have in the following code snippets tried to boil the pattern down to its simplest form. The IElement is the base interface that all immutable objects must ultimately implement.
public interface IElement : ICloneable
{
bool IsReadOnly { get; }
void MakeReadOnly();
}
The Element class is the default implementation of the IElement interface:
public abstract class Element : IElement
{
private bool immutable;
public bool IsReadOnly
{
get { return immutable; }
}
public virtual void MakeReadOnly()
{
immutable = true;
}
protected virtual void FailIfImmutable()
{
if (immutable) throw new ImmutableElementException(this);
}
...
}
Let's refactor the SampleElement class above to implement the immutable object pattern:
public class SampleElement : Element
{
private Guid id;
private string name;
public SampleElement() {}
public Guid Id
{
get
{
return id;
}
set
{
FailIfImmutable();
id = value;
}
}
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
FailIfImmutable();
name = value;
}
}
}
You can now change the Id property and the Name property as long as the object has not been marked as immutable by calling the MakeReadOnly() method. Once it is immutable, calling a setter will yield an ImmutableElementException.
Final note:
The full pattern is more complex than the code snippets shown here. It also contains support for collections of immutable objects and complete object graphs of immutable object graphs. The full pattern enables you to turn an entire object graph immutable by calling the MakeReadOnly() method on the outermost object. Once you start creating larger object models using this pattern the risk of leaky objects increases. A leaky object is an object that fails to call the FailIfImmutable() method before making a change to the object. To test for leaks I have also developed a generic leak detector class for use in unit tests. It uses reflection to test if all properties and methods throw the ImmutableElementException in the immutable state.
In other words TDD is used here.
I have grown to like this pattern a lot and find great benefits in it. So what I would like to know is if any of you are using similar patterns? If yes, do you know of any good resources that document it? I am essentially looking for potential improvements and for any standards that might already exist on this topic.
For info, the second approach is called "popsicle immutability".
Eric Lippert has a series of blog entries on immutability starting here. I'm still getting to grips with the CTP (C# 4.0), but it looks interesting what optional / named parameters (to the .ctor) might do here (when mapped to readonly fields)...
[update: I've blogged on this here]
For info, I probably wouldn't make those methods virtual - we probably don't want subclasses being able to make it non-freezable. If you want them to be able to add extra code, I'd suggest something like:
[public|protected] void Freeze()
{
if(!frozen)
{
frozen = true;
OnFrozen();
}
}
protected virtual void OnFrozen() {} // subclass can add code here.
Also - AOP (such as PostSharp) might be a viable option for adding all those ThrowIfFrozen() checks.
(apologies if I have changed terminology / method names - SO doesn't keep the original post visible when composing replies)
Another option would be to create some kind of Builder class.
For an example, in Java (and C# and many other languages) String is immutable. If you want to do multiple operations to create a String you use a StringBuilder. This is mutable, and then once you're done you have it return to you the final String object. From then on it's immutable.
You could do something similar for your other classes. You have your immutable Element, and then an ElementBuilder. All the builder would do is store the options you set, then when you finalize it it constructs and returns the immutable Element.
It's a little more code, but I think it's cleaner than having setters on a class that's supposed to be immutable.
After my initial discomfort about the fact that I had to create a new System.Drawing.Point on each modification, I've wholly embraced the concept some years ago. In fact, I now create every field as readonly by default and only change it to be mutable if there's a compelling reason – which there is surprisingly rarely.
I don't care very much about cross-threading issues, though (I rarely use code where this is relevant). I just find it much, much better because of the semantic expressiveness. Immutability is the very epitome of an interface which is hard to use incorrectly.
You are still dealing with state, and thus can still be bitten if your objects are parallelized before being made immutable.
A more functional way might be to return a new instance of the object with each setter. Or create a mutable object and pass that in to the constructor.
The (relatively) new Software Design paradigm called Domain Driven design, makes the distinction between entity objects and value objects.
Entity Objects are defined as anything that has to map to a key-driven object in a persistent data store, like an employee, or a client, or an invoice, etc... where changing the properties of the object implies that you need to save the change to a data store somewhere, and the existence of multiple instances of a class with the same "key" imnplies a need to synchronize them, or coordinate their persistence to the data store so that one instance' changes do not overwrite the others. Changing the properties of an entity object implies you are changing something about the object - not changing WHICH object you are referencing...
Value objects otoh, are objects that can be considered immutable, whose utility is defined strictly by their property values, and for which multiple instances, do not need to be coordinated in any way... like addresses, or telephone numbers, or the wheels on a car, or the letters in a document... these things are totally defined by their properties... an uppercase 'A' object in an text editor can be interchanged transparently with any other uppercase 'A' object throughout the document, you don't need a key to distinguish it from all the other 'A's In this sense it is immutable, because if you change it to a 'B' (just like changing the phone number string in a phone number object, you are not changing the data associated with some mutable entity, you are switching from one value to another... just as when you change the value of a string...
Expanding on the point by #Cory Foy and #Charles Bretana where there is a difference between entities and values. Whereas value-objects should always be immutable, I really don't think that an object should be able to freeze themselves, or allow themselves to be frozen arbitrarily in the codebase. It has a really bad smell to it, and I worry that it could get hard to track down where exactly an object was frozen, and why it was frozen, and the fact that between calls to an object it could change state from thawed to frozen.
That isn't to say that sometimes you want to give a (mutable) entity to something and ensure it isn't going to be changed.
So, instead of freezing the object itself, another possibility is to copy the semantics of ReadOnlyCollection< T >
List<int> list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3};
ReadOnlyCollection<int> readOnlyList = list.AsReadOnly();
Your object can take a part as mutable when it needs it, and then be immutable when you desire it to be.
Note that ReadOnlyCollection< T > also implements ICollection< T > which has an Add( T item) method in the interface. However there is also bool IsReadOnly { get; } defined in the interface so that consumers can check before calling a method that will throw an exception.
The difference is that you can't just set IsReadOnly to false. A collection either is or isn't read only, and that never changes for the lifetime of the collection.
It would be nice at time to have the const-correctness that C++ gives you at compile time, but that starts to have it's own set of problems and I'm glad C# doesn't go there.
ICloneable - I thought I'd just refer back to the following:
Do not implement ICloneable
Do not use ICloneable in public APIs
Brad Abrams - Design Guidelines, Managed code and the .NET Framework
System.String is a good example of a immutable class with setters and mutating methods, only that each mutating method returns a new instance.
This is an important problem, and I've love to see more direct framework/language support to solve it. The solution you have requires a lot of boilerplate. It might be simple to automate some of the boilerplate by using code generation.
You'd generate a partial class that contains all the freezable properties. It would be fairly simple to make a reusable T4 template for this.
The template would take this for input:
namespace
class name
list of property name/type tuples
And would output a C# file, containing:
namespace declaration
partial class
each of the properties, with the corresponding types, a backing field, a getter, and a setter which invokes the FailIfFrozen method
AOP tags on freezable properties could also work, but it would require more dependencies, whereas T4 is built into newer versions of Visual Studio.
Another scenario which is very much like this is the INotifyPropertyChanged interface. Solutions for that problem are likely to be applicable to this problem.
My problem with this pattern is that you're not imposing any compile-time restraints upon immutability. The coder is responsible for making sure an object is set to immutable before for example adding it to a cache or another non-thread-safe structure.
That's why I would extend this coding pattern with a compile-time restraint in the form of a generic class, like this:
public class Immutable<T> where T : IElement
{
private T value;
public Immutable(T mutable)
{
this.value = (T) mutable.Clone();
this.value.MakeReadOnly();
}
public T Value
{
get
{
return this.value;
}
}
public static implicit operator Immutable<T>(T mutable)
{
return new Immutable<T>(mutable);
}
public static implicit operator T(Immutable<T> immutable)
{
return immutable.value;
}
}
Here's a sample how you would use this:
// All elements of this list are guaranteed to be immutable
List<Immutable<SampleElement>> elements =
new List<Immutable<SampleElement>>();
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++)
{
SampleElement newElement = new SampleElement();
newElement.Id = Guid.NewGuid();
newElement.Name = "Sample" + i.ToString();
// The compiler will automatically convert to Immutable<SampleElement> for you
// because of the implicit conversion operator
elements.Add(newElement);
}
foreach (SampleElement element in elements)
Console.Out.WriteLine(element.Name);
elements[3].Value.Id = Guid.NewGuid(); // This will throw an ImmutableElementException
Just a tip to simplify the element properties: Use automatic properties with private set and avoid explicitly declaring the data field. e.g.
public class SampleElement {
public SampleElement(Guid id, string name) {
Id = id;
Name = name;
}
public Guid Id {
get; private set;
}
public string Name {
get; private set;
}
}
Here is a new video on Channel 9 where Anders Hejlsberg from 36:30 in the interview starts talking about immutability in C#. He gives a very good use case for popsicle immutability and explains how this is something you are currently required to implement yourself. It was music to my ears hearing him say it is worth thinking about better support for creating immutable object graphs in future versions of C#
Expert to Expert: Anders Hejlsberg - The Future of C#
Two other options for your particular problem that haven't been discussed:
Build your own deserializer, one that can call a private property setter. While the effort in building the deserializer at the beginning will be much more, it makes things cleaner. The compiler will keep you from even attempting to call the setters and the code in your classes will be easier to read.
Put a constructor in each class that takes an XElement (or some other flavor of XML object model) and populates itself from it. Obviously as the number of classes increases, this quickly becomes less desirable as a solution.
How about having an abstract class ThingBase, with subclasses MutableThing and ImmutableThing? ThingBase would contain all the data in a protected structure, providing public read-only properties for the fields and protected read-only property for its structure. It would also provide an overridable AsImmutable method which would return an ImmutableThing.
MutableThing would shadow the properties with read/write properties, and provide both a default constructor and a constructor that accepts a ThingBase.
Immutable thing would be a sealed class that overrides AsImmutable to simply return itself. It would also provide a constructor that accepts a ThingBase.
I dont like the idea of being able to change an object from a mutable to an immutable state, that kind of seems to defeat the point of design to me. When are you needing to do that? Only objects which represent VALUES should be immutable
You can use optional named arguments together with nullables to make an immutable setter with very little boilerplate. If you really do want to set a property to null then you may have some more troubles.
class Foo{
...
public Foo
Set
( double? majorBar=null
, double? minorBar=null
, int? cats=null
, double? dogs=null)
{
return new Foo
( majorBar ?? MajorBar
, minorBar ?? MinorBar
, cats ?? Cats
, dogs ?? Dogs);
}
public Foo
( double R
, double r
, int l
, double e
)
{
....
}
}
You would use it like so
var f = new Foo(10,20,30,40);
var g = f.Set(cat:99);