I read a question ages ago "How do C# Events work behind the scenes?" and Jon answered that all events are similar to methods...
In a purely hypothetical situation, I was wondering if someone could explain or point me to a resource that says when to use an event over a method?
Basically, If I want to have a big red/green status picture which is linked to a Bool field, and I wanted to change it based on the value of the bool, should I:
a) Have a method called Changepicture which is linked to the field and changes the state of the bool and the picture.
b) Have a get/set part to the field and stick an event in the set part.
c) Have a get/set part to the field and stick a method in the set part.
d) Other?
To gain more information about events see this post.
You have options.
If your object already implements INotifyPropertyChanged and your red/green picture is a control which supports databinding, then you can simply fire the NotifyPropertyCHanged event on the bool's set method, and add a databinding on that property to your control.
If not implementing INotifyPropertyChanged, I would still recommend doing something similar. I.e. creating your own event handler, and having the reg/green picture subscribe to the event. Just straight up calling a method from the set of your property creates a tight coupling, which is generally a bad thing to do.
The answer is: It depends.
If your boolean value is in the codebehind class of your visual component (e.g. WinForm) you can call a method ChangePicture without doing strange things. But if your boolean value is architectural more far away from the visual component an event is the right way to handle the scenario because you can not easily call a method on the visual component because the class that contains the boolean value perhaps doesn´t even know your visual component exists. :)
The best way to figure out what you should do is to look at classes in the .NET framework and see how they are designed.
Methods are "doers" or "actions", while you can see events as notification mechanisms. That is if others could be interested is being notified when something happens in an object then you can surface an event and have one or more subscribers to these events.
Since events in .NET are multi-cast, meaning multiple objects can subscribe and therefore be notified of an event happening, that may be other reason to raise an event in your objects. Events also follow the observer pattern in that the subject (your class) is really unaware of the subscribers (loosely coupled). While in order to call a method, the secondary object needs to have a reference to an instance of your class.
Note that, a method in your class eventually raises and event. So let's say you have a method in your class called ChangePicture. Then in the method's implementation, you could eventually raise an event PictureChanged. if someone is interested in being notified of this event, they can subscribe to this event. This someone is typically not the one that made the method call to change the picture.
Events are delegates. Delegates are objects. Event's are actually MulticastDelegates (a base class in the .NET framework). These objects eventually call a method, which is the method that gets called as part of the event notification. So they are slightly "heavier" then just a method call, but that should almost never determine your design.
Related
(Using VS2010. Assume performance is not an issue).
I have a particular object that implements events for all its property changes. Sometimes it will be necessary to "reset" the object to all its default property values. The easiest way to do this is simply construct a new object:
Object1= New MyObject
However, for any event subscribers to the original object, this is equivalent to a change of all property values. For example, if a subscriber was listening only for updates to property A, now it must also be aware of the possibility of new object construction. This seems to add extra effort for subscribers. (For example, maybe I would have to create a "NewObjectAssigned" event, and subscribers to property changes would need to handle that as well.)
So instead I was thinking of outfitting the object with a Reset method, so the above code changes to:
Object1.Reset
That way the Object1 reference never changes, and the Reset would manually change all properties to default values, thereby triggering all propertychanged events. But this also doesn't feel quite right, and cumbersome compared to just declaring a new object. I guess it irks me to need a method that either manually resets all properties or raises all changed events - I'd have to remember to update this method whenever new properties are added to the class. Or perhaps this isn't as problematic as I'm making it out to be.
This is a simple enough scenario that I'm sure there is a best practices for this, one way or another. Which is preferable?
If you need your event handlers to stay attached, then you'll want to use a reset instead of creating a new instance. If your object implements INotifyPropertyChanged, then you can send a single event for the reset with PropertyName set to null.
From MSDN:
An Empty value or null for the propertyName parameter indicates that all of the properties have changed.
I think I agree with Peter Ritchie's first comment, that my original question was lacking in details necessary to determine a "preferable" method. As it stands, I'm probably going with his suggestion of a wrapper class, that will be responsible for handling new object references and exposing events to subscribers.
I have a class that Handles send & receive over a socket between my application and the network. This class uses other classes, including a low level sockket connection class and a PDU handler class that creates the messages to send and handles received data.
Now i use an event to signal my class that the low level connection class has data for it and i need to send that data to the PDU handler to convert to information the application can use and then hand the data to the application.
For future usage, i am trying to get the class to be as generic as possible, so that on future Server/Client projects i will need only to change the PDU handler to take under consideration the new operations availlable and how to handle the data.
All that is well underway and now i am facing the isssue of handing the data back to the app. For that, my logical approach is an event letting the app know data is ready for collection. For that i can either:
a) have one event and let the app sort out what kind of message it is through the operation code (doable)
b) Have one event per operation code and have the app subscribe to all of them and thus know at start what it is getting
Considering the idea of making things generic, and the approach stated in b, is there a way to dinamicly create events based on a given delegate signature at runtime?
e. g.
imagine you have opcodes in an enum called MyOperation1 and MyOperation2 and you have defined a delegate like:
public delegate void PDUEventHandler(ParamType Param, [...]);
and i want to define events called:
public event PDUEventHandler MyOperation1;
public event PDUEventHandler MyOperation2;
But if i add a new operation code i will need an event for it.
Can this events be created dinamicly or do i need to do it by hand?
If i need to do it by hand then i guess a single event would be better and handle things app side.
Perhaps what you need is a callback - essentially you pass to the event handler a delegate for it to execute when the handler is done. Here's a stackoverflow thread to give you an idea
In terms of event handlers & re-useability, perhaps you can extend EventArgs and have that delegate as a property.
EDIT:
I was thinking a single PDUEventHandler having common code and a "hole" where custom code is run. That custom code is passed to the handler as a delegate (i.e. a method) or even a class instance. But let's change that a little...
Sounds like you need a factory. In fact you're practically describing a factory.
Conceptually let go of the idea of passing special opcodes to an EventHandler per se, or having multi-signature PDUEventHandlers.
Create a PDUHandlerFactoryclass. The factory returns a customized instance as a general PDUHandler class reference. Then instead of a PDUEventHander you caller has a PDUHandler reference that points to the factory-custom instance.
Is there anything in c# that you can use to create a collection of events like lists, hashsets, and a dictionary in this case? Thankyou.
Sure you can:
Dictionary<String, Delegate> m_events = new Dictionary<String, Delegate>();
In Jeff Richter's Book CLR via C# you can find a complete implementation of an EventSet class.
(Even if you don't have the book you can download the sample code from https://www.wintellect.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CLR-via-C-4th-Edition-Code.zip. The class in question is in "Ch11-1-EventSet.cs".)
As far as the question goes what an event is:
Say you have this line of code in your class:
public event EventHandler<NewMailEventArgs> NewMail;
then the C# compiler will translate the line above into three constructs:
A private delegate field. (Something like: private EventHandler<NewMailEventArgs> NewMail;
A public add_Xxx method (where Xxx is the Event name) that interested subscribers can use to register a callback delegate with the event.
A public remove_Xxx method (where Xxx is the Event name) that subscribers can use to unregister from the event.
(All the gory details can be found in section 11.2 of aforementioned book.)
So in other words the 'thing' you can store in your Event collection class is just a plain old delegate nothing else.
An event is like a property or method; you cant store instances of them. You can use reflection, but this likely isn't what you want.
Did you mean you want to store a list of methods to call when your event is fired? Events already do that.
EDIT:
Ah, I think I get it now. If you just simply fire your event, only the B instances that want it will get it. If you pass into the event args the instance of A that fired the event, then the B instance will be able to tell where it came from. But a B will never get an event from an A that it didn't ask for an event.
EDIT:
Maybe not. You only want to fire an event on one of the B's? Make B implement an interface that has a callback method. Instead of firing an event, call the method on the correct instance of B.
You could use IList with out any trouble. Type T could be any type defined in .net or user defined class.
I have a ugly piece of code that adds event handlers. The problem is, if the code is called multiple times, the event handlers are called multiple times.
To solve the problem, I remove the event handler first and then add it.
Now I've seen the following behaviour:
Some event handlers can be checked like:
if (object.event == null) {
//
// Code
//
}
others of the form
if (object.object.event == null) {
//
// Code
//
}
I get a message like 'object.object.event' may only occur left of -= or +=.
(Since I'm using a german version of visual studio, I don't know the correct translation to english).
I have no idea why the behaviour looks this inconsequent so I would be grateful for some information on this.
To be more specific: It's user control.
if (myControl.Event == null) {
//
// works
//
}
if (myControl.TreeView.NodeMouseClick == null) {
//
// doesn't work
//
}
To solve the problem, I remove the event handler first and then add it.
That doesn't solve the problem. The event keyword provides accessors for a delegate object. Much like a property provides accessors for a field. On a property, you always need one get or set. An event has the add, remove and raise accessors. But the compiler will generate a default implementation for them if you don't do so yourself. Which is fairly common.
The advantage of a property accessor is that the backing field can be private. Nobody can mess with it, except the class that contains the field. All access has to go through the get and set accessors. The event keyword works exactly the same way, nobody can mess with the delegate object, except the code in the class that contains the event.
Which shoots a gaping hole in your attempt to avoid raising the event. You cannot mess with the list of subscribers for an event that's declared in another class, the compiler is telling you this. The normal way this is done is setting a bool flag to indicate that events have to be temporarily ignored. The event handler can check that flag and avoid executing any side-effects.
SLaks is correct, and has linked to some excellent resources. Here's a relevant quote from Chris Burrows' blog article:
Let me take a quick detour here and explain to you how the binding of += works in C#. There are two possibilities:
either there is an actual + operator, such as with ints, and x += y binds to “x = x + y” except that x is only evaluated once. This is the compound assignment operator; or
the thing on the left hand side is an event, and x.E += y binds to “x.add_E(y)”. This is the event accessor operator, and in fact this is the only way to bind to an event accessor.
So what do we have in the snippet above? Well, the extra bit of detail that you need to decide is the following rule about field-like events in C#: outside of the class or struct that defines a field-like event E, binding to the name E resolves to the event itself, on which the only legal operation is calling an accessor; inside the class or struct that defines a field-like event E, binding to the name E resolves to the private delegate field.
In your case, when resolving myControl.Event, you're inside the myControl class, so you don't see an event object; instead you see an actual delegate object, which you can compare with null. When resolving myControl.TreeView.NodeMouseClick, you're outside the TreeView class, so you can't access the actual delegate object; all you get is the event object, which cannot be compared to null.
If I understand correctly, all of this wouldn't help you anyway, since presumably after you check for null, you're going to try to fire the TreeView's event for it, which you can't do.
Depending on what you're trying to do, you could probably subclass TreeView and add an internal method that would call the protected TreeView.OnNodeMouseClick method to fire the event.
You can only access the backing field for an event defined in your class.
For more information, see the spec. (Although this has changed in C# 4, the changes are irrelevant to you)
Best practice in your case would be to create a protected internal OnEventName method in each class.
You can only query your own eventhandlers for attached listeners.
Automatic events, like this one:
public event EventHandler SomethingHappened;
are implemented by the compiler using a multicast delegate.
When you write myControl.Event == null, the compiler actually needs to call Delegate.GetInvocationList on that delegate. The compiler does not let you do that unless the code is inside a method of the class exposing the event, hence the error (it only allows you to add or remove from the invocation list).
If we were talking about an event you define in your own class, then you would have the option of exposing the invocation list (e.g. through a method) and doing what you are trying to do. But for existing classes (e.g. TreeView) it is not possible.
There's a standard pattern for events in .NET - they use a delegate type that takes a plain object called sender and then the actual "payload" in a second parameter, which should be derived from EventArgs.
The rationale for the second parameter being derived from EventArgs seems pretty clear (see the .NET Framework Standard Library Annotated Reference). It is intended to ensure binary compatibility between event sinks and sources as the software evolves. For every event, even if it only has one argument, we derive a custom event arguments class that has a single property containing that argument, so that way we retain the ability to add more properties to the payload in future versions without breaking existing client code. Very important in an ecosystem of independently-developed components.
But I find that the same goes for zero arguments. This means that if I have an event that has no arguments in my first version, and I write:
public event EventHandler Click;
... then I'm doing it wrong. If I change the delegate type in the future to a new class as its payload:
public class ClickEventArgs : EventArgs { ...
... I will break binary compatibility with my clients. The client ends up bound to a specific overload of an internal method add_Click that takes EventHandler, and if I change the delegate type then they can't find that overload, so there's a MissingMethodException.
Okay, so what if I use the handy generic version?
public EventHandler<EventArgs> Click;
No, still wrong, because an EventHandler<ClickEventArgs> is not an EventHandler<EventArgs>.
So to get the benefit of EventArgs, you have to derive from it, rather than using it directly as is. If you don't, you may as well not be using it (it seems to me).
Then there's the first argument, sender. It seems to me like a recipe for unholy coupling. An event firing is essentially a function call. Should the function, generally speaking, have the ability to dig back through the stack and find out who the caller was, and adjust its behaviour accordingly? Should we mandate that interfaces should look like this?
public interface IFoo
{
void Bar(object caller, int actualArg1, ...);
}
After all, the implementor of Bar might want to know who the caller was, so they can query for additional information! I hope you're puking by now. Why should it be any different for events?
So even if I am prepared to take the pain of making a standalone EventArgs-derived class for every event I declare, just to make it worth my while using EventArgs at all, I definitely would prefer to drop the object sender argument.
Visual Studio's autocompletion feature doesn't seem to care what delegate you use for an event - you can type += [hit Space, Return] and it writes a handler method for you that matches whatever delegate it happens to be.
So what value would I lose by deviating from the standard pattern?
As a bonus question, will C#/CLR 4.0 do anything to change this, perhaps via contravariance in delegates? I attempted to investigate this but hit another problem. I originally included this aspect of the question in that other question, but it caused confusion there. And it seems a bit much to split this up into a total of three questions...
Update:
Turns out I was right to wonder about the effects of contravariance on this whole issue!
As noted elsewhere, the new compiler rules leave a hole in the type system that blows up at runtime. The hole has effectively been plugged by defining EventHandler<T> differently to Action<T>.
So for events, to avoid that type hole you should not use Action<T>. That doesn't mean you have to use EventHandler<TEventArgs>; it just means that if you use a generic delegate type, don't pick one that is enabled for contravariance.
Nothing, you lose nothing. I've been using Action<> since .NET 3.5 came out and it is far more natural and easier to program against.
I don't even deal with the EventHandler type for generated event handlers anymore, simply write the method signature you want and wire it up with a lambda:
btnCompleteOrder.OnClick += (o,e) => _presenter.CompleteOrder();
I don't like the event-handler pattern either. To my mind, the Sender object isn't really all that helpful. In cases where an event is saying something happened to some object (e.g. a change notification) it would be more helpful to have the information in the EventArgs. The only use I could kinda-sorta see for Sender would be to unsubscribe from an event, but it's not always clear what event one should unsubscribe to.
Incidentally, if I had my druthers, an Event wouldn't be an AddHandler method and a RemoveHandler method; it would just be an AddHandler method which would return a MethodInvoker that could be used for unsubscription. Rather than a Sender argument, I'd have the first argument be a copy of the MethodInvoker required for unsubscription (in case an object finds itself receiving events to which the unsubscribe invoker has been lost). The standard MulticastDelegate wouldn't be suitable for dispatching events (since each subscriber should receive a different unsubscription delegate) but unsubscribing events wouldn't require a linear search through an invocation list.