Related
How do you give a C# auto-property an initial value?
I either use the constructor, or revert to the old syntax.
Using the Constructor:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
Name = "Initial Name";
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Using normal property syntax (with an initial value)
private string name = "Initial Name";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Is there a better way?
In C# 5 and earlier, to give auto implemented properties an initial value, you have to do it in a constructor.
Since C# 6.0, you can specify initial value in-line. The syntax is:
public int X { get; set; } = x; // C# 6 or higher
DefaultValueAttribute is intended to be used by the VS designer (or any other consumer) to specify a default value, not an initial value. (Even if in designed object, initial value is the default value).
At compile time DefaultValueAttribute will not impact the generated IL and it will not be read to initialize the property to that value (see DefaultValue attribute is not working with my Auto Property).
Example of attributes that impact the IL are ThreadStaticAttribute, CallerMemberNameAttribute, ...
Edited on 1/2/15
C# 6 :
With C# 6 you can initialize auto-properties directly (finally!), there are now other answers that describe that.
C# 5 and below:
Though the intended use of the attribute is not to actually set the values of the properties, you can use reflection to always set them anyway...
public class DefaultValuesTest
{
public DefaultValuesTest()
{
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this))
{
DefaultValueAttribute myAttribute = (DefaultValueAttribute)property.Attributes[typeof(DefaultValueAttribute)];
if (myAttribute != null)
{
property.SetValue(this, myAttribute.Value);
}
}
}
public void DoTest()
{
var db = DefaultValueBool;
var ds = DefaultValueString;
var di = DefaultValueInt;
}
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool DefaultValueBool { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("Good")]
public string DefaultValueString { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(27)]
public int DefaultValueInt { get; set; }
}
When you inline an initial value for a variable it will be done implicitly in the constructor anyway.
I would argue that this syntax was best practice in C# up to 5:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
//do anything before variable assignment
//assign initial values
Name = "Default Name";
//do anything after variable assignment
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
As this gives you clear control of the order values are assigned.
As of C#6 there is a new way:
public string Name { get; set; } = "Default Name";
Sometimes I use this, if I don't want it to be actually set and persisted in my db:
class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(_name) ? "Default Name" : _name;
}
set { _name = value; }
}
}
Obviously if it's not a string then I might make the object nullable ( double?, int? ) and check if it's null, return a default, or return the value it's set to.
Then I can make a check in my repository to see if it's my default and not persist, or make a backdoor check in to see the true status of the backing value, before saving.
In C# 6.0 this is a breeze!
You can do it in the Class declaration itself, in the property declaration statements.
public class Coordinate
{
public int X { get; set; } = 34; // get or set auto-property with initializer
public int Y { get; } = 89; // read-only auto-property with initializer
public int Z { get; } // read-only auto-property with no initializer
// so it has to be initialized from constructor
public Coordinate() // .ctor()
{
Z = 42;
}
}
Starting with C# 6.0, We can assign default value to auto-implemented properties.
public string Name { get; set; } = "Some Name";
We can also create read-only auto implemented property like:
public string Name { get; } = "Some Name";
See: C# 6: First reactions , Initializers for automatically implemented properties - By Jon Skeet
In Version of C# (6.0) & greater, you can do :
For Readonly properties
public int ReadOnlyProp => 2;
For both Writable & Readable properties
public string PropTest { get; set; } = "test";
In current Version of C# (7.0), you can do : (The snippet rather displays how you can use expression bodied get/set accessors to make is more compact when using with backing fields)
private string label = "Default Value";
// Expression-bodied get / set accessors.
public string Label
{
get => label;
set => this.label = value;
}
In C# 9.0 was added support of init keyword - very useful and extremly sophisticated way for declaration read-only auto-properties:
Declare:
class Person
{
public string Name { get; init; } = "Anonymous user";
}
~Enjoy~ Use:
// 1. Person with default name
var anonymous = new Person();
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {anonymous.Name}!");
// > Hello, Anonymous user!
// 2. Person with assigned value
var me = new Person { Name = "#codez0mb1e"};
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {me.Name}!");
// > Hello, #codez0mb1e!
// 3. Attempt to re-assignment Name
me.Name = "My fake";
// > Compilation error: Init-only property can only be assigned in an object initializer
In addition to the answer already accepted, for the scenario when you want to define a default property as a function of other properties you can use expression body notation on C#6.0 (and higher) for even more elegant and concise constructs like:
public class Person{
public string FullName => $"{First} {Last}"; // expression body notation
public string First { get; set; } = "First";
public string Last { get; set; } = "Last";
}
You can use the above in the following fashion
var p = new Person();
p.FullName; // First Last
p.First = "Jon";
p.Last = "Snow";
p.FullName; // Jon Snow
In order to be able to use the above "=>" notation, the property must be read only, and you do not use the get accessor keyword.
Details on MSDN
In C# 6 and above you can simply use the syntax:
public object Foo { get; set; } = bar;
Note that to have a readonly property simply omit the set, as so:
public object Foo { get; } = bar;
You can also assign readonly auto-properties from the constructor.
Prior to this I responded as below.
I'd avoid adding a default to the constructor; leave that for dynamic assignments and avoid having two points at which the variable is assigned (i.e. the type default and in the constructor). Typically I'd simply write a normal property in such cases.
One other option is to do what ASP.Net does and define defaults via an attribute:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.defaultvalueattribute.aspx
My solution is to use a custom attribute that provides default value property initialization by constant or using property type initializer.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class InstanceAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool IsConstructorCall { get; private set; }
public object[] Values { get; private set; }
public InstanceAttribute() : this(true) { }
public InstanceAttribute(object value) : this(false, value) { }
public InstanceAttribute(bool isConstructorCall, params object[] values)
{
IsConstructorCall = isConstructorCall;
Values = values ?? new object[0];
}
}
To use this attribute it's necessary to inherit a class from special base class-initializer or use a static helper method:
public abstract class DefaultValueInitializer
{
protected DefaultValueInitializer()
{
InitializeDefaultValues(this);
}
public static void InitializeDefaultValues(object obj)
{
var props = from prop in obj.GetType().GetProperties()
let attrs = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstanceAttribute), false)
where attrs.Any()
select new { Property = prop, Attr = ((InstanceAttribute)attrs.First()) };
foreach (var pair in props)
{
object value = !pair.Attr.IsConstructorCall && pair.Attr.Values.Length > 0
? pair.Attr.Values[0]
: Activator.CreateInstance(pair.Property.PropertyType, pair.Attr.Values);
pair.Property.SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
}
Usage example:
public class Simple : DefaultValueInitializer
{
[Instance("StringValue")]
public string StringValue { get; set; }
[Instance]
public List<string> Items { get; set; }
[Instance(true, 3,4)]
public Point Point { get; set; }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Simple
{
Items = {"Item1"}
};
Console.WriteLine(obj.Items[0]);
Console.WriteLine(obj.Point);
Console.WriteLine(obj.StringValue);
}
Output:
Item1
(X=3,Y=4)
StringValue
little complete sample:
using System.ComponentModel;
private bool bShowGroup ;
[Description("Show the group table"), Category("Sea"),DefaultValue(true)]
public bool ShowGroup
{
get { return bShowGroup; }
set { bShowGroup = value; }
}
You can simple put like this
public sealed class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } = 101;
}
In the constructor. The constructor's purpose is to initialized it's data members.
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
if(name == null)
{
name = "Default Name";
}
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Have you tried using the DefaultValueAttribute or ShouldSerialize and Reset methods in conjunction with the constructor? I feel like one of these two methods is necessary if you're making a class that might show up on the designer surface or in a property grid.
Use the constructor because "When the constructor is finished, Construction should be finished". properties are like states your classes hold, if you had to initialize a default state, you would do that in your constructor.
To clarify, yes, you need to set default values in the constructor for class derived objects. You will need to ensure the constructor exists with the proper access modifier for construction where used. If the object is not instantiated, e.g. it has no constructor (e.g. static methods) then the default value can be set by the field. The reasoning here is that the object itself will be created only once and you do not instantiate it.
#Darren Kopp - good answer, clean, and correct. And to reiterate, you CAN write constructors for Abstract methods. You just need to access them from the base class when writing the constructor:
Constructor at Base Class:
public BaseClassAbstract()
{
this.PropertyName = "Default Name";
}
Constructor at Derived / Concrete / Sub-Class:
public SubClass() : base() { }
The point here is that the instance variable drawn from the base class may bury your base field name. Setting the current instantiated object value using "this." will allow you to correctly form your object with respect to the current instance and required permission levels (access modifiers) where you are instantiating it.
public Class ClassName{
public int PropName{get;set;}
public ClassName{
PropName=0; //Default Value
}
}
This is old now, and my position has changed. I'm leaving the original answer for posterity only.
Personally, I don't see the point of making it a property at all if you're not going to do anything at all beyond the auto-property. Just leave it as a field. The encapsulation benefit for these item are just red herrings, because there's nothing behind them to encapsulate. If you ever need to change the underlying implementation you're still free to refactor them as properties without breaking any dependent code.
Hmm... maybe this will be the subject of it's own question later
class Person
{
/// Gets/sets a value indicating whether auto
/// save of review layer is enabled or not
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool AutoSaveReviewLayer { get; set; }
}
I know this is an old question, but it came up when I was looking for how to have a default value that gets inherited with the option to override, I came up with
//base class
public class Car
{
public virtual string FuelUnits
{
get { return "gasoline in gallons"; }
protected set { }
}
}
//derived
public class Tesla : Car
{
public override string FuelUnits => "ampere hour";
}
I think this would do it for ya givng SomeFlag a default of false.
private bool _SomeFlagSet = false;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
SomeFlag = false;
return SomeFlag;
}
set
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
_SomeFlagSet = true;
SomeFlag = value;
}
}
This is my code:
[DataContract] // (Name = "Type")]
public enum Purpose
{
[EnumMember(Value = "definitionTarget")]
DefinitionTarget = 0,
[EnumMember(Value = "definitionSource")]
DefinitionSource = 1,
[EnumMember(Value = "semanticRole")]
SemanticRole = 2,
[EnumMember(Value = "dataType")]
DataType = 3
}
I want the enum values to display according to the strings given, not the integer values. For some reason, the values are ignored.
The serialization code is nothing fancy:
protected string GetRuntimeValue(RuntimeValue value)
{
MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream();
_serializer.WriteObject(ms, value);
return System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetString(ms.ToArray());
}
I went to the Microsoft documentation and found an example with some boilerplate code where they inherit IExtensibleDataObject (no explanation why). I added the code to my base class, no change.
What am I doing wrong? Should be something simple, no?
The bad news is that DataContractJsonSerializer ignores the EnumMember attribute and this is by design:
Enumeration member values are treated as numbers in JSON, which is
different from how they are treated in data contracts, where they are
included as member names. ... The EnumMemberAttribute and the NonSerializedAttribute attributes are ignored if used.
A Microsoft support agent also confirmed this and suggested a kludge which is to expose a property decorated with DataMember for the serializer to use instead, which calls Enum.GetName() to get the string name of the enum value.
It would need to be modified in your case to return a string with the first letter converted to lower case:
[DataContract]
public class RuntimeValue
{
public Purpose Purpose { get; set; }
[DataMember(Name = "Purpose")]
string PurposeString
{
get { return Enum.GetName(typeof(Purpose), this.Purpose).FirstCharacterToLower(); }
set { this.Purpose = (Purpose)Enum.Parse(typeof(Purpose), value, true); }
}
}
Uses an extension method borrowed from here to do the lower case stuff:
public static string FirstCharacterToLower(this string str)
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(str) || Char.IsLower(str, 0))
return str;
return Char.ToLowerInvariant(str[0]) + str.Substring(1);
}
Testing:
Console.WriteLine(GetRuntimeValue(new RuntimeValue()));
Output:
{"Purpose":"definitionTarget"}
Personally I would use JSON.NET instead if possible but for the sake of my answer I am assuming that you have already considered that option and have good reason to stick with this serializer.
Could you please help me to find the solution to deserialize xml file which contains an empty tag?
Example is here:
<Report>
<ItemsCount></ItemsCount>
</Report>
And I want to deserialize it into object of class like:
public class Report{
public int? ItemsCount { get;set;}
}
my xml schema which i'm using in deserialization is:
[XmlRoot]
public partial class Report
{
private int? itemsCount;
[XmlElement(IsNullable = true)]
public int? ItemsCount {
get
{
return itemsCount;
}
set
{
itemsCount = value;
}
}
It works well if the ItemsCount tag is missing at all, but if it is exist and is empty at the same moment, in that case it throwing the exception regarding lines there this tag is located in xml.
I saw a lot of links here while trying to find the solution, but without success.
And also, i don't want to just ignore the tag for all the cases, i want to get a null value instead then it is empty.
XmlSerializer is trying to convert string.Empty value of tag to integer and failing. Change your property as below to convert data type to string:
[XmlElement]
public string ItemsCount {
get
{
return itemsCount;
}
set
{
itemsCount = value;
}
This will set property Itemscount to empty in the above case.
For null value for the above property the xml should be as below:
<ItemsCount xs:Nil='true'/>
How about this approach?
Define the class as follows:
public class Report
{
[XmlIgnore]
public int? ItemsCount { get; set; }
}
Due to the XmlIgnore attribute, this tag will be treated as unknown.
When creating the serializer add the event handler:
var xs = new XmlSerializer(typeof(Report));
xs.UnknownElement += Xs_UnknownElement;
In the event handler interpret an empty string as null:
private void Xs_UnknownElement(object sender, XmlElementEventArgs e)
{
var report = (Report)e.ObjectBeingDeserialized;
if (e.Element.InnerText == string.Empty)
report.ItemsCount = null;
else
report.ItemsCount = int.Parse(e.Element.InnerText);
}
Use the serializer as usual:
Report report;
using (var fs = new FileStream("test.xml", FileMode.Open))
{
report = (Report)xs.Deserialize(fs);
}
To my understanding, the described behaviour is correct; if the tag ItemsCount is missing, its value is null; if it is empty, its value cannot be converted from "" to a value of int?. That being said, it would be possible to implement some custom parsing into the accessors of ItemsCount, which would have to be of type string. However, this seems more like a workaround to me. If possible, the document should be changed to begin with.
This is related to a prior question of mine C# Generic List conversion to Class implementing List<T>
I have the following code:
public abstract class DataField
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class DataField<T> : DataField
{
public T Value { get; set; }
}
public static List<DataField> ConvertXML(XMLDocument data) {
result = (from d in XDocument.Parse(data.OuterXML).Root.Decendendants()
select new DataField<string>
{
Name = d.Name.ToString(),
Value = d.Value
}).Cast<DataField>().ToList();
return result;
}
This works however I would like to be able to modify the select portion of the LINQ query to be something like this:
select new DataField<[type defined in attribute of XML Element]>
{
Name = d.Name.ToString(),
Value = d.Value
}
Is this just a poor approach? is it possible? Any suggestions?
Here is a working solution: (You must specify fully qualified type names for your Type attribute otherwise you have to configure a mapping somehow...)
I used the dynamic keyword, you can use reflection to set the value instead if you do not have C# 4...
public static void Test()
{
string xmlData = "<root><Name1 Type=\"System.String\">Value1</Name1><Name2 Type=\"System.Int32\">324</Name2></root>";
List<DataField> dataFieldList = DataField.ConvertXML(xmlData);
Debug.Assert(dataFieldList.Count == 2);
Debug.Assert(dataFieldList[0].GetType() == typeof(DataField<string>));
Debug.Assert(dataFieldList[1].GetType() == typeof(DataField<int>));
}
public abstract class DataField
{
public string Name { get; set; }
/// <summary>
/// Instanciate a generic DataField<T> given an XElement
/// </summary>
public static DataField CreateDataField(XElement element)
{
//Determine the type of element we deal with
string elementTypeName = element.Attribute("Type").Value;
Type elementType = Type.GetType(elementTypeName);
//Instanciate a new Generic element of type: DataField<T>
dynamic dataField = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(DataField<>).MakeGenericType(elementType));
dataField.Name = element.Name.ToString();
//Convert the inner value to the target element type
dynamic value = Convert.ChangeType(element.Value, elementType);
//Set the value into DataField
dataField.Value = value;
return dataField;
}
/// <summary>
/// Take all the descendant of the root node and creates a DataField for each
/// </summary>
public static List<DataField> ConvertXML(string xmlData)
{
var result = (from d in XDocument.Parse(xmlData).Root.DescendantNodes().OfType<XElement>()
select CreateDataField(d)).ToList();
return result;
}
}
public class DataField<T> : DataField
{
public T Value { get; set; }
}
You cannot do this easily in C#. The generic type argument has to specified at compile time. You can use reflection to do otherwise
int X = 1;
Type listype = typeof(List<>);
Type constructed = listype.MakeGenericType( X.GetType() );
object runtimeList = Activator.CreateInstance(constructed);
Here we have just created a List<int>. You can do it with your type
Different instances of a generic class are actually different classes.
I.e. DataField<string> and DataField<int> are not the same class at all(!)
This means, that you can not define the generic parameter during run-time, as it has to be determined during compile-time.
I would say this is a poor approach. In reality, even after you parse your XML file, you're not going to know what types of "DataFields" you have. You might as well just parse them as objects.
However, if you know that you're only ever going to have x number of types, you can do like so:
var Dictionary<string, Func<string, string, DataField>> myFactoryMaps =
{
{"Type1", (name, value) => { return new DataField<Type1>(name, Type1.Parse(value); } },
{"Type2", (name, value) => { return new DataField<Type2>(name, Type2.Parse(value); } },
};
Termit's answer is certainly excellent. Here is a little variant.
public abstract class DataField
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class DataField<T> : DataField
{
public T Value { get; set; }
public Type GenericType { get { return this.Value.GetType(); } }
}
static Func<XElement , DataField> dfSelector = new Func<XElement , DataField>( e =>
{
string strType = e.Attribute( "type" ).Value;
//if you dont have an attribute type, you could call an extension method to figure out the type (with regex patterns)
//that would only work for struct
Type type = Type.GetType( strType );
dynamic df = Activator.CreateInstance( typeof( DataField<>).MakeGenericType( type ) );
df.Name = e.Attribute( "name" ).Value;
dynamic value = Convert.ChangeType( e.Value , type );
df.Value = value;
return df;
} );
public static List<DataField> ConvertXML( string xmlstring )
{
var result = XDocument.Parse( xmlstring )
.Root.Descendants("object")
.Select( dfSelector )
.ToList();
return result;
}
static void Main( string[] args )
{
string xml = "<root><object name=\"im1\" type=\"System.String\">HelloWorld!</object><object name=\"im2\" type=\"System.Int32\">324</object></root>";
List<DataField> dfs = ConvertXML( xml );
}
you can create generic type by reflection
var instance = Activator.CreateInstance( typeof(DataField)
.MakeGenericType(Type.GetType(typeNameFromAttribute) );
// and here set properties also by reflection
#Termit and #Burnzy put forward good solutions involving factory methods.
The problem with that is that you're loading up your parsing routine with a bunch of extra logic (more testing, more errors) for dubious returns.
Another way to do it would be to use a simplified string-based DataField with typed read methods - the top answer for this question.
An implementation of a typed-value method that would be nice but only works for value types (which does not include strings but does include DateTimes):
public T? TypedValue<T>()
where T : struct
{
try { return (T?) Convert.ChangeType(this.Value, typeof(T)); }
catch { return null; }
}
I'm assuming that you're wanting to use the type information to do things like dynamically assigning user-controls to the field, validation rules, correct SQL types for persistence etc.
I've done a lot of this sort of thing with approaches that seem a bit like yours.
At the end of the day you should seperate your metadata from your code - #Burnzy's answer chooses the code based on the metadata (a "type" attribute of the DataField element) and is a very simple example of this.
If you're dealing with XML, XSDs are a very useful and extensible form of metadata.
As far as what you store each field's data in - use strings because:
they are nullable
they can store partial values
they can store invalid values (makes telling the user to sort their act out more transparent)
they can store lists
special cases won't invade unrelated code because there aren't any
learn regular expressions, validate, be happy
you can convert them to stronger types really easily
I found it very rewarding to develop little frameworks like this - it is a learning experience and you'll come out understanding a lot more about UX and the reality of modelling from it.
There are four groups of test cases that I would advise you to tackle first:
Dates, Times, Timestamps (what I call DateTime), Periods (Timespan)
in particular, make sure you test having a different server locality from the client's.
lists - multi-select foreign keys etc
null values
invalid input - this generally involves retaining the original value
Using strings simplifies all this greatly because it allows you to clearly demarcate responsibilities within your framework. Think about doing fields containing lists in your generic model - it gets hairy rather quickly and it is easy to end up with a special case for lists in pretty much every method. With strings, the buck stops there.
Finally, if you want a solid implementation of this sort of stuff without having to do anything much, consider DataSets - old school I know - they do all sorts of wonderful things you wouldn't expect but you do have to RTFM.
The main downfall of that idea would be that it isn't compatible with WPF data binding - though my experience has been that reality isn't compatible with WPF data binding.
I hope I interpreted your intentions correctly - good luck either way :)
Unfortunately, there no inheritance relation between C<T> and C<string> for instance.
However, you can inherit from a common non-generic class and in addition to this implement a generic interface.
Here I use explicit interface implementation in order to be able to declare a Value property typed as object, as well as a more specifically typed Value property.
The Values are read-only and can only be assigned through a typed constructor parameter. My construction is not perfect, but type safe and doesn't use reflection.
public interface IValue<T>
{
T Value { get; }
}
public abstract class DataField
{
public DataField(string name, object value)
{
Name = name;
Value = value;
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
public object Value { get; private set; }
}
public class StringDataField : DataField, IValue<string>
{
public StringDataField(string name, string value)
: base(name, value)
{
}
string IValue<string>.Value
{
get { return (string)Value; }
}
}
public class IntDataField : DataField, IValue<int>
{
public IntDataField(string name, int value)
: base(name, value)
{
}
int IValue<int>.Value
{
get { return (int)Value; }
}
}
The list can then be declared with the abstract base class DataField as generic parameter:
var list = new List<DataField>();
switch (fieldType) {
case "string":
list.Add(new StringDataField("Item", "Apple"));
break;
case "int":
list.Add(new IntDataField("Count", 12));
break;
}
Access the strongly typed field through the interface:
public void ProcessDataField(DataField field)
{
var stringField = field as IValue<string>;
if (stringField != null) {
string s = stringField.Value;
}
}
While the other questions mostly proposed an elegant solution to convert your XML elements to a generic class instance, I'm going to deal with the consequences of taking the approach to model the DataField class as a generic like DataField<[type defined in attribute of XML Element]>.
After selecting your DataField instance into the list you want to use these fields. Her polymorphism comes into play! You want to iterate your DataFields an treat them in a uniform way. Solutions that use generics often end up in a weird switch/if orgy since there is no easy way to associate behavior based on the generic type in c#.
You might have seen code like this (I'm trying to calculate the sum of all numeric DataField instances)
var list = new List<DataField>()
{
new DataField<int>() {Name = "int", Value = 2},
new DataField<string>() {Name = "string", Value = "stringValue"},
new DataField<float>() {Name = "string", Value = 2f},
};
var sum = 0.0;
foreach (var dataField in list)
{
if (dataField.GetType().IsGenericType)
{
if (dataField.GetType().GetGenericArguments()[0] == typeof(int))
{
sum += ((DataField<int>) dataField).Value;
}
else if (dataField.GetType().GetGenericArguments()[0] == typeof(float))
{
sum += ((DataField<float>)dataField).Value;
}
// ..
}
}
This code is a complete mess!
Let's go try the polymorphic implementation with your generic type DataField and add some method Sum to it that accepts the old some and returns the (possibly modified) new sum:
public class DataField<T> : DataField
{
public T Value { get; set; }
public override double Sum(double sum)
{
if (typeof(T) == typeof(int))
{
return sum + (int)Value; // Cannot really cast here!
}
else if (typeof(T) == typeof(float))
{
return sum + (float)Value; // Cannot really cast here!
}
// ...
return sum;
}
}
You can imagine that your iteration code gets a lot clearer now but you still have this weird switch/if statement in you code. And here comes the point: Generics do not help you here it's the wrong tool at the wrong place. Generics are designed in C# for giving you compile time type safety to avoid potential unsafe cast operations. They additionally add to code readability but that's not the case here :)
Let's take a look at the polymorphic solution:
public abstract class DataField
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public object Value { get; set; }
public abstract double Sum(double sum);
}
public class IntDataField : DataField
{
public override double Sum(double sum)
{
return (int)Value + sum;
}
}
public class FloatDataField : DataField
{
public override double Sum(double sum)
{
return (float)Value + sum;
}
}
I guess you will not need too much fantasy to imagine how much adds to your code's readability/quality.
The last point is how to create instances of these classes. Simply by using some convention TypeName + "DataField" and Activator:
Activator.CreateInstance("assemblyName", typeName);
Short Version:
Generics is not the appropriate approach for your problem because it does not add value to the handling of DataField instances. With the polymorphic approach you can work easily with the instances of DataField!
It's not impossible as you can do this with reflection. But this isn't what generics were designed for and isn't how it should be done. If you're going to use reflection to make the generic type, you may as well not use a generic type at all and just use the following class:
public class DataField
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public object Value { get; set; }
}
You'll need to insert the logic for determining the data type from your XML and add all the types you need to use but this should work:
result = (from d in XDocument.Parse(data.OuterXML).Root.Descendants()
let isString = true //Replace true with your logic to determine if it is a string.
let isInt = false //Replace false with your logic to determine if it is an integer.
let stringValue = isString ? (DataField)new DataField<string>
{
Name = d.Name.ToString(),
Value = d.Value
} : null
let intValue = isInt ? (DataField)new DataField<int>
{
Name = d.Name.ToString(),
Value = Int32.Parse(d.Value)
} : null
select stringValue ?? intValue).ToList();
How do you give a C# auto-property an initial value?
I either use the constructor, or revert to the old syntax.
Using the Constructor:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
Name = "Initial Name";
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Using normal property syntax (with an initial value)
private string name = "Initial Name";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Is there a better way?
In C# 5 and earlier, to give auto implemented properties an initial value, you have to do it in a constructor.
Since C# 6.0, you can specify initial value in-line. The syntax is:
public int X { get; set; } = x; // C# 6 or higher
DefaultValueAttribute is intended to be used by the VS designer (or any other consumer) to specify a default value, not an initial value. (Even if in designed object, initial value is the default value).
At compile time DefaultValueAttribute will not impact the generated IL and it will not be read to initialize the property to that value (see DefaultValue attribute is not working with my Auto Property).
Example of attributes that impact the IL are ThreadStaticAttribute, CallerMemberNameAttribute, ...
Edited on 1/2/15
C# 6 :
With C# 6 you can initialize auto-properties directly (finally!), there are now other answers that describe that.
C# 5 and below:
Though the intended use of the attribute is not to actually set the values of the properties, you can use reflection to always set them anyway...
public class DefaultValuesTest
{
public DefaultValuesTest()
{
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this))
{
DefaultValueAttribute myAttribute = (DefaultValueAttribute)property.Attributes[typeof(DefaultValueAttribute)];
if (myAttribute != null)
{
property.SetValue(this, myAttribute.Value);
}
}
}
public void DoTest()
{
var db = DefaultValueBool;
var ds = DefaultValueString;
var di = DefaultValueInt;
}
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool DefaultValueBool { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("Good")]
public string DefaultValueString { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(27)]
public int DefaultValueInt { get; set; }
}
When you inline an initial value for a variable it will be done implicitly in the constructor anyway.
I would argue that this syntax was best practice in C# up to 5:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
//do anything before variable assignment
//assign initial values
Name = "Default Name";
//do anything after variable assignment
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
As this gives you clear control of the order values are assigned.
As of C#6 there is a new way:
public string Name { get; set; } = "Default Name";
Sometimes I use this, if I don't want it to be actually set and persisted in my db:
class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(_name) ? "Default Name" : _name;
}
set { _name = value; }
}
}
Obviously if it's not a string then I might make the object nullable ( double?, int? ) and check if it's null, return a default, or return the value it's set to.
Then I can make a check in my repository to see if it's my default and not persist, or make a backdoor check in to see the true status of the backing value, before saving.
In C# 6.0 this is a breeze!
You can do it in the Class declaration itself, in the property declaration statements.
public class Coordinate
{
public int X { get; set; } = 34; // get or set auto-property with initializer
public int Y { get; } = 89; // read-only auto-property with initializer
public int Z { get; } // read-only auto-property with no initializer
// so it has to be initialized from constructor
public Coordinate() // .ctor()
{
Z = 42;
}
}
Starting with C# 6.0, We can assign default value to auto-implemented properties.
public string Name { get; set; } = "Some Name";
We can also create read-only auto implemented property like:
public string Name { get; } = "Some Name";
See: C# 6: First reactions , Initializers for automatically implemented properties - By Jon Skeet
In Version of C# (6.0) & greater, you can do :
For Readonly properties
public int ReadOnlyProp => 2;
For both Writable & Readable properties
public string PropTest { get; set; } = "test";
In current Version of C# (7.0), you can do : (The snippet rather displays how you can use expression bodied get/set accessors to make is more compact when using with backing fields)
private string label = "Default Value";
// Expression-bodied get / set accessors.
public string Label
{
get => label;
set => this.label = value;
}
In C# 9.0 was added support of init keyword - very useful and extremly sophisticated way for declaration read-only auto-properties:
Declare:
class Person
{
public string Name { get; init; } = "Anonymous user";
}
~Enjoy~ Use:
// 1. Person with default name
var anonymous = new Person();
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {anonymous.Name}!");
// > Hello, Anonymous user!
// 2. Person with assigned value
var me = new Person { Name = "#codez0mb1e"};
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {me.Name}!");
// > Hello, #codez0mb1e!
// 3. Attempt to re-assignment Name
me.Name = "My fake";
// > Compilation error: Init-only property can only be assigned in an object initializer
In addition to the answer already accepted, for the scenario when you want to define a default property as a function of other properties you can use expression body notation on C#6.0 (and higher) for even more elegant and concise constructs like:
public class Person{
public string FullName => $"{First} {Last}"; // expression body notation
public string First { get; set; } = "First";
public string Last { get; set; } = "Last";
}
You can use the above in the following fashion
var p = new Person();
p.FullName; // First Last
p.First = "Jon";
p.Last = "Snow";
p.FullName; // Jon Snow
In order to be able to use the above "=>" notation, the property must be read only, and you do not use the get accessor keyword.
Details on MSDN
In C# 6 and above you can simply use the syntax:
public object Foo { get; set; } = bar;
Note that to have a readonly property simply omit the set, as so:
public object Foo { get; } = bar;
You can also assign readonly auto-properties from the constructor.
Prior to this I responded as below.
I'd avoid adding a default to the constructor; leave that for dynamic assignments and avoid having two points at which the variable is assigned (i.e. the type default and in the constructor). Typically I'd simply write a normal property in such cases.
One other option is to do what ASP.Net does and define defaults via an attribute:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.defaultvalueattribute.aspx
My solution is to use a custom attribute that provides default value property initialization by constant or using property type initializer.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class InstanceAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool IsConstructorCall { get; private set; }
public object[] Values { get; private set; }
public InstanceAttribute() : this(true) { }
public InstanceAttribute(object value) : this(false, value) { }
public InstanceAttribute(bool isConstructorCall, params object[] values)
{
IsConstructorCall = isConstructorCall;
Values = values ?? new object[0];
}
}
To use this attribute it's necessary to inherit a class from special base class-initializer or use a static helper method:
public abstract class DefaultValueInitializer
{
protected DefaultValueInitializer()
{
InitializeDefaultValues(this);
}
public static void InitializeDefaultValues(object obj)
{
var props = from prop in obj.GetType().GetProperties()
let attrs = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstanceAttribute), false)
where attrs.Any()
select new { Property = prop, Attr = ((InstanceAttribute)attrs.First()) };
foreach (var pair in props)
{
object value = !pair.Attr.IsConstructorCall && pair.Attr.Values.Length > 0
? pair.Attr.Values[0]
: Activator.CreateInstance(pair.Property.PropertyType, pair.Attr.Values);
pair.Property.SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
}
Usage example:
public class Simple : DefaultValueInitializer
{
[Instance("StringValue")]
public string StringValue { get; set; }
[Instance]
public List<string> Items { get; set; }
[Instance(true, 3,4)]
public Point Point { get; set; }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Simple
{
Items = {"Item1"}
};
Console.WriteLine(obj.Items[0]);
Console.WriteLine(obj.Point);
Console.WriteLine(obj.StringValue);
}
Output:
Item1
(X=3,Y=4)
StringValue
little complete sample:
using System.ComponentModel;
private bool bShowGroup ;
[Description("Show the group table"), Category("Sea"),DefaultValue(true)]
public bool ShowGroup
{
get { return bShowGroup; }
set { bShowGroup = value; }
}
You can simple put like this
public sealed class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } = 101;
}
In the constructor. The constructor's purpose is to initialized it's data members.
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
if(name == null)
{
name = "Default Name";
}
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Have you tried using the DefaultValueAttribute or ShouldSerialize and Reset methods in conjunction with the constructor? I feel like one of these two methods is necessary if you're making a class that might show up on the designer surface or in a property grid.
Use the constructor because "When the constructor is finished, Construction should be finished". properties are like states your classes hold, if you had to initialize a default state, you would do that in your constructor.
To clarify, yes, you need to set default values in the constructor for class derived objects. You will need to ensure the constructor exists with the proper access modifier for construction where used. If the object is not instantiated, e.g. it has no constructor (e.g. static methods) then the default value can be set by the field. The reasoning here is that the object itself will be created only once and you do not instantiate it.
#Darren Kopp - good answer, clean, and correct. And to reiterate, you CAN write constructors for Abstract methods. You just need to access them from the base class when writing the constructor:
Constructor at Base Class:
public BaseClassAbstract()
{
this.PropertyName = "Default Name";
}
Constructor at Derived / Concrete / Sub-Class:
public SubClass() : base() { }
The point here is that the instance variable drawn from the base class may bury your base field name. Setting the current instantiated object value using "this." will allow you to correctly form your object with respect to the current instance and required permission levels (access modifiers) where you are instantiating it.
public Class ClassName{
public int PropName{get;set;}
public ClassName{
PropName=0; //Default Value
}
}
This is old now, and my position has changed. I'm leaving the original answer for posterity only.
Personally, I don't see the point of making it a property at all if you're not going to do anything at all beyond the auto-property. Just leave it as a field. The encapsulation benefit for these item are just red herrings, because there's nothing behind them to encapsulate. If you ever need to change the underlying implementation you're still free to refactor them as properties without breaking any dependent code.
Hmm... maybe this will be the subject of it's own question later
class Person
{
/// Gets/sets a value indicating whether auto
/// save of review layer is enabled or not
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool AutoSaveReviewLayer { get; set; }
}
I know this is an old question, but it came up when I was looking for how to have a default value that gets inherited with the option to override, I came up with
//base class
public class Car
{
public virtual string FuelUnits
{
get { return "gasoline in gallons"; }
protected set { }
}
}
//derived
public class Tesla : Car
{
public override string FuelUnits => "ampere hour";
}
I think this would do it for ya givng SomeFlag a default of false.
private bool _SomeFlagSet = false;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
SomeFlag = false;
return SomeFlag;
}
set
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
_SomeFlagSet = true;
SomeFlag = value;
}
}