We Keep Coding

Dynamic form with no real OOP or objects?

I am tacking a large refactor of a project, and I had asked this question to confirm/understand the direction I should go in and I think I got the answer that I wanted, which is not to throw away years worth of code. So, now begins the challenge of refactoring the code. I've been reading Martine Fowler and Martin Feathers' books, and they have a lot of insight, but I am looking for advice on the ultimate goal of where I want the application to be.
So to reiterate the application a little bit, its a dynamic forms system, with lots of validation logic and data logic between the fields. The main record that gets inserted is the set of form fields that is on the page. Another part of it is 'Actions' that you can do for a person. These 'Actions' can differ client by client, and there are hundreds of 'Actions'. There is also talk that we can somehow make an engine that can eventually take on other similar areas, where a 'person' can be something else (such as student, or employee). So I want to build something very de-coupled. We have one codebase, but different DBs for different clients. The set of form fields on the page are dynamic, but the DB is not - it is translated into the specific DB table via stored procs. So, the generic set of fields are sent to the stored proc and the stored proc then decides what to do with the fields (figure out which table it needs to go to). These tables in fact are pretty static, meaning that they are not really dynamic, and there is a certain structure to it.
What I'm struggling specifically is how to setup a good way to do the dynamic form control page. It seems majority of the logic will be in code on the UI/aspx.cs page, because its loading controls onto the webpage. Is there some way I can do this, so it is done in a streamlined fashion, so the aspx.cs page isn't 5000 lines long? I have a 'FORM' object, and one of the properties is its' 'FIELDS'. So this object is loaded up in the business layer and the Data layer, but now on the fron end, it has to loop through the FIELDS and output the controls onto the page. Also, someway to be able to control the placement would be useful, too - not sure how do get that into this model....
Also, from another point of view - how can I 'really' get this into an object-oriented-structure? Because technically, they can create forms of anything. And those form fields can represent any object. So, for example, today they can create a set of form fields, that represent a 'person' - tomorrow they can create a set of form fields that represent a 'furniture'. How can I possibly translate this to to a person or a furniture object (or should I even be trying to?). And I don't really have controls over the form fields, because they can create whatever....
Any thought process would be really helpful - thanks!

How can I possibly translate this to to a person or a furniture object
(or should I even be trying to?)
If I understand you correctly, you probably shouldn't try to convert these fields to specific objects since the nature of your application is so dynamic. If the stored procedures are capable of figuring out which combination of fields belongs to which tables, then great.
If you can change the DB schema, I would suggest coming up with something much more dynamic. Rather than have a single table for each type of dynamic object, I would create the following schema:
Object {
ID
Name
... (clientID, etc.) ...
}
Property {
ID
ObjectID
Name
DBType (int, string, object-id, etc.)
FormType ( textbox, checkbox, etc.)
[FormValidationRegex] <== optional, could be used by field controls
Value
}
If you can't change the database schema, you can still apply the following to the old system using the stored procedures and fixed tables:
Then when you read in a specific object from the database, you can loop through each of the properties and get the form type and simple add the appropriate generic form type to the page:
foreach(Property p in Object.Properties)
{
switch(p.FormType)
{
case FormType.CheckBox:
PageForm.AddField(new CheckboxFormField(p.Name, p.Value));
break;
case FormType.Email:
PageForm.AddField(new EmailFormField(p.Name, p.Value));
break;
case FormType.etc:
...
break;
}
}
Of course, I threw in a PageForm object, as well as CheckboxFormField and EmailFormField objects. The PageForm object could simply be a placeholder, and the CheckboxFormField and EmailFormField could be UserControls or ServerControls.
I would not recommend trying to control placement. Just list off each field one by one vertically. This is becoming more and more popular anyway, even with static forms who's layout can be controlled completely. Most signup forms, for example, follow this convention.
I hope that helps. If I understood your question wrong, or if you'd like further explanations, let me know.

Not sure I understand the question. But there's two toolboxes suitable for writing generic code. It's generics, and it's reflection - typically in combination.
I don't think I really understand what you're trying to do, but a method using relfection to identify all the properties of an object might look like this:
using System.Reflection;
(...)
public void VisitProperties(object subject)
{
Type subjectType = subject.GetType();
foreach (PropertyInfo info in subjectType.GetProperties()
{
object value = info.GetValue(subject, null);
Console.WriteLine("The name of the property is " + info.Name);
Console.WriteLine("The value is " + value.ToString());
}
}
You can also check out an entry on my blog where I discuss using attributes on objects in conjunction with reflection. It's actually discussing how this can be utilized to write generic UI. Not exactly what you want, but at least the same principles could be used.
http://codepatrol.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/129/
This means that you could create your own custom attributes, or use those that already exists within the .NET framework already, to describe your types. Attributes to specify rules for validation, field label, even field placement could be used.
public class Person
{
[FieldLabel("First name")]
[ValidationRules(Rules.NotEmpty | Rules.OnlyCharacters)]
[FormColumn(1)]
[FormRow(1)]
public string FirstName{get;set;}
[FieldLabel("Last name")]
[ValidationRules(Rules.NotEmpty | Rules.OnlyCharacters)]
[FormColumn(2)]
[FormRow(1)]
public string LastName{get;set;}
}
Then you'd use the method described in my blog to identify these attributes and take the apropriate action - e.g. placing them in the proper row, giving the correct label, and so forth. I won't propose how to solve these things, but at least reflection is a great and simple tool to get descriptive information about an unknown type.

I found xml invaluable for this same situation. You can build an object graph in your code to represent the form easily enough. This object graph can again be loaded/saved from a db easily.
You can turn your object graph into xml & use xslt to generate the html for display. You now also have the benefit of customising this transform for differnetn clients/versions/etc. I also store the xml in the database for performance & to give me a publish function.
You need some specific code to deal with the incoming data, as you're going to be accessing the raw request post. You need to validate the incoming data against what you think you was shown. That stops people spoofing/meddling with your forms.
I hope that all makes sense.

.NET refactoring, DRY. dual inheritance, data access and separation of concerns

Back story:
So I've been stuck on an architecture problem for the past couple of nights on a refactor I've been toying with. Nothing important, but it's been bothering me. It's actually an exercise in DRY, and an attempt to take it to such an extreme as the DAL architecture is completely DRY. It's a completely philosophical/theoretical exercise.
The code is based in part on one of #JohnMacIntyre's refactorings which I recently convinced him to blog about at http://whileicompile.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/my-clean-code-experience-no-1/. I've modified the code slightly, as I tend to, in order to take the code one level further - usually, just to see what extra mileage I can get out of a concept... anyway, my reasons are largely irrelevant.
Part of my data access layer is based on the following architecture:
abstract public class AppCommandBase : IDisposable { }
This contains basic stuff, like creation of a command object and cleanup after the AppCommand is disposed of. All of my command base objects derive from this.
abstract public class ReadCommandBase<T, ResultT> : AppCommandBase
This contains basic stuff that affects all read-commands - specifically in this case, reading data from tables and views. No editing, no updating, no saving.
abstract public class ReadItemCommandBase<T, FilterT> : ReadCommandBase<T, T> { }
This contains some more basic generic stuff - like definition of methods that will be required to read a single item from a table in the database, where the table name, key field name and field list names are defined as required abstract properties (to be defined by the derived class.
public class MyTableReadItemCommand : ReadItemCommandBase<MyTableClass, Int?> { }
This contains specific properties that define my table name, the list of fields from the table or view, the name of the key field, a method to parse the data out of the IDataReader row into my business object and a method that initiates the whole process.
Now, I also have this structure for my ReadList...
abstract public ReadListCommandBase<T> : ReadCommandBase<T, IEnumerable<T>> { }
public class MyTableReadListCommand : ReadListCommandBase<MyTableClass> { }
The difference being that the List classes contain properties that pertain to list generation (i.e. PageStart, PageSize, Sort and returns an IEnumerable) vs. return of a single DataObject (which just requires a filter that identifies a unique record).
Problem:
I'm hating that I've got a bunch of properties in my MyTableReadListCommand class that are identical in my MyTableReadItemCommand class. I've thought about moving them to a helper class, but while that may centralize the member contents in one place, I'll still have identical members in each of the classes, that instead point to the helper class, which I still dislike.
My first thought was dual inheritance would solve this nicely, even though I agree that dual inheritance is usually a code smell - but it would solve this issue very elegantly. So, given that .NET doesn't support dual inheritance, where do I go from here?
Perhaps a different refactor would be more suitable... but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how to sidestep this problem.
If anyone needs a full code base to see what I'm harping on about, I've got a prototype solution on my DropBox at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3029830/Prototypes/Prototype%20-%20DAL%20Refactor.zip. The code in question is in the DataAccessLayer project.
P.S. This isn't part of an ongoing active project, it's more a refactor puzzle for my own amusement.
Thanks in advance folks, I appreciate it.

Separate the result processing from the data retrieval. Your inheritance hierarchy is already more than deep enough at ReadCommandBase.
Define an interface IDatabaseResultParser. Implement ItemDatabaseResultParser and ListDatabaseResultParser, both with a constructor parameter of type ReadCommandBase ( and maybe convert that to an interface too ).
When you call IDatabaseResultParser.Value() it executes the command, parses the results and returns a result of type T.
Your commands focus on retrieving the data from the database and returning them as tuples of some description ( actual Tuples or and array of arrays etc etc ), your parser focuses on converting the tuples into objects of whatever type you need. See NHibernates IResultTransformer for an idea of how this can work (and it's probably a better name than IDatabaseResultParser too).
Favor composition over inheritance.
Having looked at the sample I'll go even further...
Throw away AppCommandBase - it adds no value to your inheritance hierarchy as all it does is check that the connection is not null and open and creates a command.
Separate query building from query execution and result parsing - now you can greatly simplify the query execution implementation as it is either a read operation that returns an enumeration of tuples or a write operation that returns the number of rows affected.
Your query builder could all be wrapped up in one class to include paging / sorting / filtering, however it may be easier to build some form of limited structure around these so you can separate paging and sorting and filtering. If I was doing this I wouldn't bother building the queries, I would simply write the sql inside an object that allowed me to pass in some parameters ( effectively stored procedures in c# ).
So now you have IDatabaseQuery / IDatabaseCommand / IResultTransformer and almost no inheritance =)

I think the short answer is that, in a system where multiple inheritance has been outlawed "for your protection", strategy/delegation is the direct substitute. Yes, you still end up with some parallel structure, such as the property for the delegate object. But it is minimized as much as possible within the confines of the language.
But lets step back from the simple answer and take a wide view....
Another big alternative is to refactor the larger design structure such that you inherently avoid this situation where a given class consists of the composite of behaviors of multiple "sibling" or "cousin" classes above it in the inheritance tree. To put it more concisely, refactor to an inheritance chain rather than an inheritance tree. This is easier said than done. It usually requires abstracting very different pieces of functionality.
The challenge you'll have in taking this tack that I'm recommending is that you've already made a concession in your design: You're optimizing for different SQL in the "item" and "list" cases. Preserving this as is will get in your way no matter what, because you've given them equal billing, so they must by necessity be siblings. So I would say that your first step in trying to get out of this "local maximum" of design elegance would be to roll back that optimization and treat the single item as what it truly is: a special case of a list, with just one element. You can always try to re-introduce an optimization for single items again later. But wait till you've addressed the elegance issue that is vexing you at the moment.
But you have to acknowledge that any optimization for anything other than the elegance of your C# code is going to put a roadblock in the way of design elegance for the C# code. This trade-off, just like the "memory-space" conjugate of algorithm design, is fundamental to the very nature of programming.

As is mentioned by Kirk, this is the delegation pattern. When I do this, I usually construct an interface that is implemented by the delegator and the delegated class. This reduces the perceived code smell, at least for me.

I think the simple answer is... Since .NET doesn't support Multiple Inheritence, there is always going to be some repetition when creating objects of a similar type. .NET simply does not give you the tools to re-use some classes in a way that would facilitate perfect DRY.
The not-so-simple answer is that you could use code generation tools, instrumentation, code dom, and other techniques to inject the objects you want into the classes you want. It still creates duplication in memory, but it would simplify the source code (at the cost of added complexity in your code injection framework).
This may seem unsatisfying like the other solutions, however if you think about it, that's really what languages that support MI are doing behind the scenes, hooking up delegation systems that you can't see in source code.
The question comes down to, how much effort are you willing to put into making your source code simple. Think about that, it's rather profound.

I haven't looked deeply at your scenario, but I have some thoughs on the dual-hierarchy problem in C#. To share code in a dual-hierarchy, we need a different construct in the language: either a mixin, a trait (pdf) (C# research -pdf) or a role (as in perl 6). C# makes it very easy to share code with inheritance (which is not the right operator for code-reuse), and very laborious to share code via composition (you know, you have to write all that delegation code by hand).
There are ways to get a kind of mixin in C#, but it's not ideal.
The Oxygene (download) language (an Object Pascal for .NET) also has an interesting feature for interface delegation that can be used to create all that delegating code for you.

Choice of Data Structure

I need to have a list(array, ect) of objects that have a static values. What is the best way (more usefull) to organize such data structure on c#?
Now, I am able to do it using two ways:
1) Enumarations with an additional parameters:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/stringenum.aspx
2) Create some class with needed fields and then create an array of different classes instances.
Please write what of methods is the best with comments why or provide other ideas how to do it

I think the data structure you adopt will be largely dependant on how you intend to use the static values.
If you are going to be doing a lot of comparisons, I would suggest an enumeration with custom attributes (as described in your link, but possibly taken further) to provide additional metadata. However, if the structure containing the static values is going to operate more like a series of choices (e.g. the Encoding class in System.Text) then a static class with fields marked as readonly would be a better option.

Tuples for objects with static values

Sounds like a classic example of a Dictionary, a simple Key-Value relationship
http://dotnetperls.com/dictionary-keys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_array

How do you call these classes?

I'm trying to find a collective name for these non-"helper" classes which encapsulate method results (e.g. "SignupResult"), classes which hold multiple filter values (e.g. "ContactSearchFilter"), my SortDirection enum etc. -- I want to organize these correctly but can't find the correct name for these as a whole. Help?

Do they really have anything in common that would justify an own category name?
If you want to organize such files, I suggest putting them in the same folder/namespace as their dependencies, i.e. the enum belongs in the same namespace as the dictionary you use it with, SignupResult belongs together with the other signup process classes etc.

Depends on what you do with it. If you save it in the database, it's effectively an 'Entity'. If you just use it to pass variables around, I'd call it a 'Holder' class (though that's not really a formal term).
It's arguably interesting to consider that if you have too many of these, perhaps your design is not so great. You probably shouldn't be so-much passing results around, as doing actions based on things happening. JMHO. FWIW.

Perhaps creating a class called UserSession or something and have things like SignupResult/ContactSearchFilter as properties.

3 layer architechture and little details like dropdown lists

So I am refactoring a little application as an example to get more practice. The purpose of the application (let's say) is to collect the data from a "sign up new user" form, save it in the database. The only limitation I have is I have to use a special custom Data Access class which communicates directly with the database and returns the data (if applicable) in a DataTable object.
I have a question regarding a little details on a form and how do they fit in into the layer architecture. For example, my form has a drop down list that's fed from the database, but at the same time drop down list doesn't represent an object per SE (unlike a User that is a object, there is a class User that has multiple methods, data members etc). I don't want to have calls to the stored procedure right there in the code behind but I also do not wish to overdo on abstraction.
What would be an elegant way to take care of these little details w/o creating a class abstraction galore.
Hope I am being clear

Funny you should ask that. I went through that issue here.
These other Stack Overflow Questions that I've answered that show other parts (tangentially related):
Getting ListView Data Items from Objects
Working with ListViews
Concatenating Properties in a DropDownList

An option for getting non-object data to the UI is to create one or more lookup classes that are a bucket or "service" for getting odd bits of data for things like drop down lists etc...
Example:
myDDL.DataSource = Lookup.GetAllCountries(); // GetAllCountries is a static method
// set name/value fields etc...
myDDL.DataBind();
Using this methodology, you can still support tier separation. It's not object oriented or elegant, but it is very practical.

I don't know what's best practice, but what I do is I have a utility class that has a method that takes as arguments a DropDownList object and an enum, so I do
FillDropDown( ddlistPhoneType, DropDownTypes.PhoneTypes );
The utility class fills the dropdowns sometimes from the database, other times from XML, and occasionally some hardcoded values. But at least the GUI doesn't have to worry about that.