In my domain layer all domain objects emit events (of type InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler) to indicate invalid state when the IsValid property is called.
On an aspx codebehind, I have to manually wire up the events for the domain object like this:
_purchaseOrder.AmountIsNull += new DomainObject.InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler(HandleDomainObjectEvent);
_purchaseOrder.NoReason += new DomainObject.InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler(HandleDomainObjectEvent);
_purchaseOrder.NoSupplier += new DomainObject.InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler(HandleDomainObjectEvent);
_purchaseOrder.BothNewAndExistingSupplier += new DomainObject.InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler(HandleDomainObjectEvent);
Note that the same method is called in each case since the InvalidDomainobjectEventArgs class contains the message to display.
Is there any way I can write a single statement to wire up all events of type InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler in one go?
Thanks
David
I don't think you can do this in a single statement.. But you can make the code more readible like this:
_purchaseOrder.AmountIsNull += HandleDomainObjectEvent;
_purchaseOrder.NoReason += HandleDomainObjectEvent;
_purchaseOrder.NoSupplier += HandleDomainObjectEvent;
_purchaseOrder.BothNewAndExistingSupplier += HandleDomainObjectEvent;
Other than that - seems like the answer's no :(
You can create an aggregate event in some base class (or in some helper class, or in the PurchaseOrder class itself, if you have access to it):
abstract class BaseOrderPage : Page {
PurchaseOrder _purchaseOrder = new PurchaseOrder();
...
public event InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler InvalidDomainObjectEvent {
add {
_purchaseOrder.AmountIsNull += value;
_purchaseOrder.NoReason += value;
_purchaseOrder.NoSupplier += value;
_purchaseOrder.BothNewAndExistingSupplier += value;
}
remove {
_purchaseOrder.AmountIsNull -= value;
_purchaseOrder.NoReason -= value;
_purchaseOrder.NoSupplier -= value;
_purchaseOrder.BothNewAndExistingSupplier -= value;
}
}
}
And then just use it in the derived classes:
InvalidDomainObjectEvent += new DomainObject.InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler(HandleDomainObjectEvent);
C# 2.0 and above:
InvalidDomainObjectEvent += HandleDomainObjectEvent;
I've used this technique successfully to aggregate events of the FileSystemWatcher class.
You can use reflection to do this automatically. I think you want something like this:
public static void WireEvents(object subject)
{
Type type = subject.GetType();
var events = type.GetEvents()
.Where(item => item.EventHandlerType == typeof(InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler));
foreach (EventInfo info in events)
info.AddEventHandler(subject, new InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler(HandleDomainObjectEvent));
}
Then, all you have to do when you create a new object is this:
PurchaseOrder _purchaseOrder = new PurchaseOrder();
HelperClass.WireEvents(_purchaseOrder);
Don't forget that there is a performance penalty with reflection that will be apparent if you create PurchaseOrders and other similar objects in any great numbers.
Edit - other notes: you will need a using System.Reflection directive. As it stands, this code needs C#3 for the var keyword and .net framework 3.5 for the Where() method (and - if it's not automatically generated - using System.Linq;).
As David has done in a later answer, it can be re-written without changing the basic functionality for earlier versions.
I looked at Bob Sammers' suggestion. The compiler wasn't liking the .Where method of the EventInfo[] returned by GetEvents(), but I've changed the code slightly to the following:
private void HookUpEvents()
{
Type purchaseOrderType = typeof (PurchaseOrder);
var events = purchaseOrderType.GetEvents();
foreach (EventInfo info in events)
{
if (info.EventHandlerType == typeof(Kctc.Data.Domain.DomainObject.InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler))
{
info.AddEventHandler(_purchaseOrder, new Kctc.Data.Domain.DomainObject.InvalidDomainObjectEventHandler(HandleDomainObjectEvent));
}
}
}
After I added this method to the page, it all worked absolutely hunky dory. And I can add events to the purchase order object without having to remember to hook them up individually, which is exactly what I wanted.
You could consider to put the event handlers into an interface. Then you attach the interface:
public interface IPurchaseOrderObserver
{
void AmountIsNullEventHandler(WhateverArgs);
void NoReasonEventHandler(WhateverArgs);
void NoSupplierEventHandler(WhateverArgs);
void BothNewAndExistingSupplierEventHandler(WhateverArgs);
}
_purchaseOrder.RegisterObserver(DomainObject);
You either put this four lines into the RegisterObeserver method, or you replace the events and directly call the interfaces.
Related
I have a ton on controls on a form, and there is a specific time when I want to stop all of my events from being handled for the time being. Usually I just do something like this if I don't want certain events handled:
private bool myOpRunning = false;
private void OpFunction()
{
myOpRunning = true;
// do stuff
myOpRunning = false;
}
private void someHandler(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (myOpRunning) return;
// otherwise, do things
}
But I have A LOT of handlers I need to update. Just curious if .NET has a quicker way than having to update each handler method.
You will have to create your own mechanism to do this. It's not too bad though. Consider adding another layer of abstraction. For example, a simple class called FilteredEventHandler that checks the state of myOpRunning and either calls the real event handler, or suppresses the event. The class would look something like this:
public sealed class FilteredEventHandler
{
private readonly Func<bool> supressEvent;
private readonly EventHandler realEvent;
public FilteredEventHandler(Func<bool> supressEvent, EventHandler eventToRaise)
{
this.supressEvent = supressEvent;
this.realEvent = eventToRaise;
}
//Checks the "supress" flag and either call the real event handler, or skip it
public void FakeEventHandler(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (!this.supressEvent())
{
this.realEvent(sender, e);
}
}
}
Then when you hook up the event, do this:
this.Control.WhateverEvent += new FilteredEventHandler(() => myOpRunning, RealEventHandler).FakeEventHandler;
When WhateverEvent gets raised, it will call the FilteredEventHandler.FakeEventHandler method. That method will check the flag and either call, or not call the real event handler. This is pretty much logically the same as what you're already doing, but the code that checks the myOpRunning flag is in only one place instead of sprinkled all over your code.
Edit to answer question in the comments:
Now, this example is a bit incomplete. It's a little difficult to unsubscribe from the event completely because you lose the reference to the FilteredEventHandler that's hooked up. For example, you can't do:
this.Control.WhateverEvent += new FilteredEventHandler(() => myOpRunning, RealEventHandler).FakeEventHandler;
//Some other stuff. . .
this.Control.WhateverEvent -= new FilteredEventHandler(() => myOpRunning, RealEventHandler).FakeEventHandler; //Not gonna work!
because you're hooking up one delegate and unhooking a completely different one! Granted, both delegates are the FakeEventHandler method, but that's an instance method and they belong to two completely different FilteredEventHandler objects.
Somehow, you need to get a reference to the first FilteredEventHandler that you constructed in order to unhook. Something like this would work, but it involves keeping track of a bunch of FilteredEventHandler objects which is probably no better than the original problem you're trying to solve:
FilteredEventHandler filter1 = new FilteredEventHandler(() => myOpRunning, RealEventHandler);
this.Control.WhateverEvent += filter1.FakeEventHandler;
//Code that does other stuff. . .
this.Control.WhateverEvent -= filter1.FakeEventHandler;
What I would do, in this case, is to have the FilteredEventHandler.FakeEventHandler method pass its 'this' reference to the RealEventHandler. This involves changing the signature of the RealEventHandler to either take another parameter:
public void RealEventHandler(object sender, EventArgs e, FilteredEventHandler filter);
or changing it to take an EventArgs subclass that you create that holds a reference to the FilteredEventHandler. This is the better way to do it
public void RealEventHandler(object sender, FilteredEventArgs e);
//Also change the signature of the FilteredEventHandler constructor:
public FilteredEventHandler(Func<bool> supressEvent, EventHandler<FilteredEventArgs> eventToRaise)
{
//. . .
}
//Finally, change the FakeEventHandler method to call the real event and pass a reference to itself
this.realEvent(sender, new FilteredEventArgs(e, this)); //Pass the original event args + a reference to this specific FilteredEventHandler
Now the RealEventHandler that gets called can unsubscribe itself because it has a reference to the correct FilteredEventHandler object that got passed in to its parameters.
My final advice, though is to not do any of this! Neolisk nailed it in the comments. Doing something complicated like this is a sign that there's a problem with the design. It will be difficult for anybody who needs to maintain this code in the future (even you, suprisingly!) to figure out the non-standard plumbing involved.
Usually when you're subscribing to events, you do it once and forget it - especially in a GUI program.
You can do it with reflection ...
public static void UnregisterAllEvents(object objectWithEvents)
{
Type theType = objectWithEvents.GetType();
//Even though the events are public, the FieldInfo associated with them is private
foreach (System.Reflection.FieldInfo field in theType.GetFields(System.Reflection.BindingFlags.NonPublic | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Instance))
{
//eventInfo will be null if this is a normal field and not an event.
System.Reflection.EventInfo eventInfo = theType.GetEvent(field.Name);
if (eventInfo != null)
{
MulticastDelegate multicastDelegate = field.GetValue(objectWithEvents) as MulticastDelegate;
if (multicastDelegate != null)
{
foreach (Delegate _delegate in multicastDelegate.GetInvocationList())
{
eventInfo.RemoveEventHandler(objectWithEvents, _delegate);
}
}
}
}
}
You could just disable the container where all these controls are put in. For example, if you put them in a GroupBox or Panel simply use: groupbox.Enabled = false; or panel.Enabled = false;. You could also disable the form From1.Enabled = false; and show a wait cursor. You can still copy and paste these controls in a container other than the form.
Delegate : I understand. But when I move to event, many things I don't understand so much. I read book, MSDN and some simple examples on Network, they both have same structures. For example, here is the link : Event Example
I take the first example, that the author said it's the most easiest example about C# Event.
Here is his code :
public class Metronome
{
public event TickHandler Tick;
public EventArgs e = null;
public delegate void TickHandler(Metronome m, EventArgs e);
public void Start()
{
while (true)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(3000);
if (Tick != null)
{
Tick(this, e);
}
}
}
}
public class Listener
{
public void Subscribe(Metronome m)
{
m.Tick += new Metronome.TickHandler(HeardIt);
}
private void HeardIt(Metronome m, EventArgs e)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("HEARD IT");
}
}
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
Metronome m = new Metronome();
Listener l = new Listener();
l.Subscribe(m);
m.Start();
}
}
You can notice line: public event TickHandler Tick. When I change to public TickHandler Tick, program still run the same. But new line I understand because it's just a pure delegate.
So, my question is : what is the real purpose of event keyword in line : public event TickHandler Tick. This is very important, because all examples always use like this, but I cannot explain why.
Thanks :)
Delegates and events are related concepts, but they are not the same thing. The term "delegate" tends to have two meanings (often glossed over):
A delegate type which is similar to a single method interface. (There are significant differences, but that's a reasonable starting point.)
An instance of that type, often created via a method group, such that when the delegate is "invoked", the method is called.
An event is neither of those. It's a kind of member in a type - a pair of add/remove methods, taking a delegate to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the event. The add and remove methods are used when you use foo.SomeEvent += handler; or foo.SomeEvent -= handler;.
This is very similar to how a property is really a pair of get/set methods (or possibly just one of the two).
When you declare a field-like event like this:
public event TickHandler Tick;
the compiler adds members to your class which are somewhat like this:
private TickHandler tick;
public event TickHandler
{
add { tick += value; }
remove { tick -= value; }
}
It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea - it's a simple implementation of the event, just like an automatically implemented property. From inside the class, you can access the backing field, whereas outside the class you'll always end up just using the event.
Personally I think it's a pity that the declaration of a field-like event looks so much like a field of a delegate type - it leads to some of the misleading (IMO) statements found in some of the answers, as if the event keyword "modifies" a field declaration - when actually it means you're declaring something entirely different. I think it would have been clearer if field-like events looked more like automatically-implemented properties, e.g.
// Not real C#, but I wish it were...
public event TickHandler Tick { add; remove; }
I have a whole article going into rather more detail, which you may find useful.
The event keyword basically restricts the operation on your delegate.
You can no longer assign it manually using the = operator.
You can only add (using +=) or remove (using -=) delegates from your event, one by one. This is done in order to prevent some subscriber to "overwrite" other subscriptions.
Consequently, you cannot do: m.Tick = new Metronome.TickHandler(HeardIt)
"event" is a modifier. What's the benefit?
you can use events in interfaces
only the class declaring it can invoke an event
events expose an add and remove accessor that you can override and do custom stuff
events limit you to a specific signature of the assigned method SomeMethod(object source, EventArgs args) which provide you with additional information about the event.
You're correct - the addition of the event keyword seems to be almost redundant. However, there's a key difference between fields that are events and fields that are typed to a pure delegate. Using the event keyword means that objects external to the containing object can subscribe to the delegate, but they cannot invoke it. When you drop the event keyword, external objects can subscribe AND invoke the delegate (visibility permitting.)
When you add a listener to your program you add the event, not the delegate
see your code m.Tick +=
you see that part right there is you are asking for the property (type event) and you are adding to it a listener with the +=. Now you can only add to that Tick property a TickHandler type and if you override it you have to make your own that is the same format as TickHandler.
much like when you add to a string, or int.
string stringTest = string.Empty;
stringTest += "this works";
stringTest += 4; //this doesn't though
int intTest = 0;
intTest += 1; //works because the type is the same
intTest += "This doesn't work";
Metronome m = new Metronome();
Metronome.TickHandler myTicker = new Metronome.TickHandler(function);
m.Tick += myTicker; //works because it is the right type
m.Tick += 4; //doesn't work... wrong type
m.Tick += "This doesnt work either"; //string type is not TickHandler type
does that clear it up some?
As far as i'm informed an event is basically a multicast delegate, but with different access rules for the basic operations, that can be performed on delegates and events from within or outside the class they are defined in.
The operations are:
assign using the = operator
add/remove using the += and -= operator
invoke using the () operator
Operation | delegate | event
------------------+------------+--------
Inside class += / -= | valid | valid
------------------+------------+--------
Inside class = | valid | valid
------------------+------------+--------
Inside class () | valid | valid
------------------+------------+--------
Outside class += / -= | valid | valid
------------------+------------+--------
Outside class = | valid | not valid
------------------+------------+--------
Outside class () | valid | not valid
This gives you encapsulation which is always good OOP style. :-)
I think the main difference between using delegate and event is that the event can be only raised by the Server (means the author of the class)
If you remove the event keyword now you can raise the m.Tick(sender,e) in the Listener otherwise not.
public class Listener
{
public void Subscribe(Metronome m)
{
m.Tick += new Metronome.TickHandler(HeardIt);
}
private void RaisTick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
m.Tick(sender,e);
}
private void HeardIt(Metronome m, EventArgs e)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("HEARD IT");
}
}
I'm creating custom control that contain multiple parts. Inside template creation I'm subscribing for different events like so:
public override void OnApplyTemplate()
{
base.OnApplyTemplate();
this.partAreaCode = this.GetTemplateChild(PartAreaCode) as TextBox;
this.partExchange = this.GetTemplateChild(PartExchange) as TextBox;
this.partSubscriber = this.GetTemplateChild(PartSubscriber) as TextBox;
if (this.partAreaCode == null || this.partExchange == null || this.partSubscriber == null)
{
throw new NullReferenceException("Template part(s) not available");
}
this.partAreaCode.KeyDown += this.AreaKeyDown;
this.partAreaCode.TextChanged += this.AreaTextChanged;
this.partExchange.KeyDown += this.ExchangeKeyDown;
this.partExchange.TextChanged += this.ExchangeTextChanged;
this.partSubscriber.KeyDown += this.SubscriberKeyDown;
// Template might be applied after dependency property set
// lets refresh UI in this case
this.UIFromValue();
}
So, I wonder if I should unsubscribe from those events and if so - where and how?
You don't have to. Because your PART elements are children of the event subscriber. If your main control gets garbage collected, so do your PART elements.
A short example. Lets say you have 2 instances A and B ... A keeps a hard reference to B. If B is only hold in memory by the reference in A and A gets garbage collected so does B. You don't need to clear the reference in A first.
If for some reason you don't want events anymore while your element, with your PART child elements, lives you have to unsubsribe of course.
A Rule of thumb: Always unsubscribe events if the event owner lives longer than the subscriber.
Well you've accepted an answer already and you may be able to get away that approach but its a too risky for my tastes. It assumes that OnApplyTemplate only ever gets called once. Potentially though your custom control may live a long time with OnApplyTemplate getting called more than once.
I'll outline here what hard-core control developers do, I'll just use one TextBox for brevity.
[TemplatePart(Name = MyControl.PartAreaCode, Type = typeof(TextBox))]
public partial class MyControl: Control
{
public MyControl()
{
DefaultStyleKey = typeof(MyControl);
}
#region Template Part Names
private const string PartAreaCode = "AreaCodeTextBox";
#endregion
#region internal TextBox AreaCodeTextBox
private TextBox _AreaCodeTextBox;
internal TextBox AreaCodeTextBox
{
get { return _AreaCodeTextBox; }
set
{
if (_AreaCodeTextBox != null)
{
_AreaCodeTextBox -= AreaCodeTextBox_KeyDown;
_AreaCodeTextBox -= AreaCodeTextBox_TextChanged;
}
_AreaCodeTextBox = value;
if (_AreaCodeTextBox != null)
{
_AreaCodeTextBox += AreaCodeTextBox_KeyDown;
_AreaCodeTextBox += AreaCodeTextBox_TextChanged;
}
}
}
#endregion
public overide void OnApplyTemplate()
{
base.OnApplyTemplate();
AreaCodeTextBox = GetTemplateChild(PartAreaCode) as TextBox;
}
#region Part Event Handlers
// Your event handlers here
#endregion
}
Yes I know that this looks like overkill but the code is boilerplate and we use regions to rollup the repeative stuff so we can inspect code that actually does something interesting without being concerned with the plumbing. With this one instance its easy to roll it out to multiple parts.
As my code suggests, I'm trying to create a delegate which will point to the StringBuff method BuffString, which creates a StringBuilder that is going to have a fair amount of settings, etc.
My problem is that, for some reason, no matter what it is I try I can't pass the reference to the StringBuff class I made within my Sprite class to the delegate's constructor without receiving an error. Ontop of that, I feel like creating an event may be useful to help initiate the delegate.
The main problem is that I'm just now barely grasping these two concepts, as well as how to use them as replacements for function pointers which are allowed in other programming languages.
If anyone has any idea on what it is I need to do to make this work, I would definitely appreciate it.
Here's the code:
public class StringBuff
{
private static StringBuilder stringBuffer = new StringBuilder();
public static StringBuilder BuffString(string _string) //--may possibly have to use IntPtr to reference stringBuffer here.
//This is the equivalent to the "strbuff_new" C++ method variant, designed to update the stringBuffer.
{
int iCounter = 0;
stringBuffer.Append(_string + " ");
iCounter += _string.Length + 1;
if (iCounter == stringBuffer.Capacity - 1)
{
stringBuffer.Capacity += stringBuffer.Capacity;
}
return stringBuffer;
}
}
public delegate void UpdateStringBuffer(StringBuff sender);
public class Sprite : SpriteInterface.ISprite
{
private StringBuff stringBuff = new StringBuff();
public event UpdateStringBuffer stringBuffEvent
{
add
{
Console.WriteLine("Adding");
stringBuffEvent += value;
}
remove
{
Console.WriteLine("Removing...");
stringBuffEvent -= value;
}
}
static void Main()
{
new Sprite().stringBuffEvent += new UpdateStringBuffer(stringBuff);
}
}
I believe you are in need for some reading. Refer to the following:
Events Tutorial
Introduction to Delegates and Events
Events and Delegates simplified
You are misunderstanding the use of events and delegate.
When you want to add an Event Handler to an event, you pass a delegate of the same type as the event (which you did correctly)
But when you create a delegate, what you should pass in the constructor (most of the time) is a Method Name and not some variable, since a delegate is a kind of pointer to a (list of) functions.
I reccomend you to read more about delegates as Akram Shahda suggested but just for now i'll tell you that the method that you should pass as parameter to the delegate constructor should have the same signature - means return the same value and accept the same parameters. so for example you could have:
// This method have the same signature as UpdateStringBufferDelegate
public void SomeMethod (StringBuff buff)
{
// Doing somthing here
}
And then you can do in your main:
// Passing method's name and not a variable!!
new Sprite().stringBuffEvent += new UpdateStringBuffer(SomeMethod);
The Actuall parameters that will be passed to the function itself (some StringBuff) only determined at the time of the invokation of the event.
You should read more about that.
Good Luck!
you are doing it wrong,
new Sprite().stringBuffEvent += new UpdateStringBuffer(stringBuff);
Above code is invalid due to following reasons.
1. stringBuff that your UpdateStringBuffer is taking is an instance of StringBuff within Sprite.
2. You are accessing stringBuff from the static Main method which does not have any idea about stringBuff where it is located.
1- The delegate's constructor can only have a parameter Method. Ex
public delegate void UpdateStringBuffer(StringBuff sender);
2- You can declare ur event and add a method to define ur method in ur Splite class. Ex:
public event UpdateStringBuffer stringBuffEvent;
public ProcessUpdateStringBuffer(UpdateStringBuffer yourMethod)
{
stringBuffEvent += yourMethod
}
3- and from ur main u can define ur method to the event and invoke it like this:
Sprite sprite = new Sprite();
sprite.ProcessUpdateStringBuffer(UpdateStringBuffer(urMethod));
sprite.stringBuffEvent(ur parameters);
I am writing integration tests that involve FileSystemWatcher objects. To make things easier, I want to unsubscribe everything from an event delegate without having to hunt down every subscription. I already saw related post, Is it necessary to unsubscribe from events?. This is somewhat a duplicate, but I am specifically asking why this doesn't work with a FileSystemWatcher object.
It would be nice to do something like the following:
private void MethodName()
{
var watcher = new FileSystemWatcher(#"C:\Temp");
watcher.Changed += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Changed);
watcher.Changed = null; // A simple solution that smells of C++.
// A very C#-ish solution:
foreach (FileSystemEventHandler eventDelegate in
watcher.Changed.GetInvocationList())
watcher.Changed -= eventDelegate;
}
No matter how the Changed event is referenced, the compiler reports:
The event 'System.IO.FileSystemWatcher.Changed' can only appear on the left hand side of += or -=
The above code works just fine, when working with an event in the same class:
public event FileSystemEventHandler MyFileSystemEvent;
private void MethodName()
{
MyFileSystemEvent += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Changed);
MyFileSystemEvent = null; // This works.
// This works, too.
foreach (FileSystemEventHandler eventDelegate in
MyFileSystemEvent.GetInvocationList())
watcher.Changed -= eventDelegate;
}
So, what am I missing? It seems that I should be able to do the same with the FileSystemWatcher events.
When you declare event in your class, it is an equivalent (almost) of the following code:
private FileSystemEventHandler _eventBackingField;
public event FileSystemEventHandler MyFileSystemEvent
{
add
{
_eventBackingField =
(FileSystemEventHandler)Delegate.Combine(_eventBackingField, value);
}
remove
{
_eventBackingField =
(FileSystemEventHandler)Delegate.Remove(_eventBackingField, value);
}
}
Notice that there is no set or get accessor for event (like for properties) and you can't explicitly write them.
When you write MyFileSystemEvent = null in your class, it is actually doing _eventBackingField = null, but outside your class there is no way to directly set this variable, you have only event add & remove accessors.
This might be a confusing behavior, because inside your class you can reference an event handler delegate by event name, and can't do that outside the class.
Short answer is += and -= are public operators while = is a private operator to the class that's declaring the event.