We Keep Coding

Adding a generic method constraint from the another generic class

I'm not sure the title reflect the question that I was meant, but..
Let's say I have two classes, Entity and Component:
public abstract class Entity
{
private List<Component> _components = new List<Component>();
public void AddComponent<T>()
where T : Component
{
T component = (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
component.Owner = this;
_components.Add(component);
}
}
public abstract class Component
{
public Entity Owner { get; protected set; }
public abstract void Update();
}
As you may notice, above classes are abstract classes which mean is not intended for direct use. However, on the later stage of development, I'm aware that some Component require ability that only attachable / Added by specific class that inherited to Entity class.
So, I added a class Component<T> that inherit Component:
public abstract class Entity
{
private List<Component> _components = new List<Component>();
public void AddComponent<T>()
where T : Component
{
T component = (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
component.Owner = this;
_components.Add(component);
}
}
public abstract class Component
{
public Entity Owner { get; protected set; }
public abstract void Update();
}
public abstract class Component<T> : Component
{
// I hide the base.Owner with new keyword
// feel free to suggest me in case there is better approach to do this
new public T Owner
{
get { return (T)base.Owner; }
protected set { base.Owner = value; }
}
}
And now, let's say I have Foo, Bar and Processor class:
public class Foo : Entity
{
public int FooValue { get; set; }
}
public class Bar : Entity
{
public int BarValue { get; set; }
}
public class Processor : Component<Foo>
{
public override void Update()
{
Owner.FooValue = 10;
}
}
What I want to do is to make Processor class only add-able by Foo object. Currently AddComponent ignore it, so I don't know how to do that:
var foo = new Foo();
var bar = new Bar();
foo.AddComponent<Processor>(); // OK
bar.AddComponent<Processor>(); // Compiler should give an error at this point
I also tried to do this:
public void AddComponent<T, X>()
where T : Component<X>
where X : Entity
{
T component = (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
component.Owner = this;
_components.Add(component);
}
However, it require me to explicitly specify the X constraint:
foo.AddComponent<Processor, Foo>();
bar.AddComponent<Processor, Bar>(); // Error, but the syntax is weird!
Any ideas?

Your post isn't clear on what constraints, if any, you have on your basic Entity and Component classes. So I don't know if the below will be feasible in your scenario. That said, I believe that if it's not, you won't be able to do what you want because otherwise the generic type parameters won't be known by the compiler.
The solution, absent any other constraints, is to make your Entity class generic, and provide the sub-class type itself as the type parameter:
class Entity { }
class Entity<T> : Entity where T : Entity<T>
{
public void AddComponent<U>(U value) where U : Component<T> { }
}
class Component<T> where T : Entity { }
class Foo : Entity<Foo> { }
class Bar : Entity<Bar> { }
class P : Component<Foo> { }
I know it looks weird. But you're basically asking for a self-referential graph of generic type dependencies, and in C# code the above is what that looks like.
You can call the AddComponent() method using type inference (so no generic parameter needed). If you try to call it with the wrong type of Component<T> object, you'll get a compiler error:
Foo foo = new Foo();
Bar bar = new Bar();
P p = new P();
foo.AddComponent(p);
bar.AddComponent(p); // CS0311
Note: I would strongly recommend against hiding class members. It doesn't really affect your question as stated (i.e. you could have left that detail out completely), but having two different properties with the same name is just asking for bugs. If you must use hiding, IMHO you should at least have the new property use the hidden property. E.g.:
class Component
{
public Entity Owner { get; protected set; }
}
class Component<T> : Component where T : Entity
{
new public T Owner
{
get { return (T)base.Owner; }
set { base.Owner = value; }
}
}
You won't get compile-time checking on assignments to the non-generic Component.Owner property, but at least you'll get a run-time error if some code tries to dereference the Owner property as the generic version, if and when the wrong type was assigned by the base type for some reason.

What is the best way to define a static property which is defined once per sub-class?

I wrote the following console app to test static properties:
using System;
namespace StaticPropertyTest
{
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public static int MyProperty { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedAlpha : BaseClass
{
}
public class DerivedBeta : BaseClass
{
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
DerivedBeta.MyProperty = 7;
Console.WriteLine(DerivedAlpha.MyProperty); // outputs 7
}
}
}
As this console app demonstrates, the MyProperty property exists once for all instances of BaseClass. Is there a pattern to use which would allow me to define a static property which will have allocated storage for each sub-class type?
Given the above example, I would like all instances of DerivedAlpha to share the same static property, and all instances of DerivedBeta to share another instance of the static property.
Why am I trying to do this?
I am lazily initializing a collection of class property names with certain attributes (via reflection). The property names will be identical for each derived class instance, so it seems wasteful to store this in each class instance. I can't make it static in the base class, because different sub-classes will have different properties.
I don't want to replicate the code which populates the collection (via reflection) in each derived class. I know that one possible solution is to define the method to populate the collection in the base class, and call it from each derived class, but this is not the most elegant solution.
Update - Example of what I'm doing
At Jon's request, here's an example of what I'm trying to do. Basically, I can optionally decorate properties in my classes with the [SalesRelationship(SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude)] attribute (there are other attributes, this is just a simplified example).
public class BaseEntity
{
// I want this property to be static but exist once per derived class.
public List<string> PropertiesWithDoNotInclude { get; set; }
public BaseEntity()
{
// Code here will populate PropertiesWithDoNotInclude with
// all properties in class marked with
// SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude.
//
// I want this code to populate this property to run once per
// derived class type, and be stored statically but per class type.
}
}
public class FooEntity : BaseEntity
{
[SalesRelationship(SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude)]
public int? Property_A { get; set; }
public int? Property_B { get; set; }
[SalesRelationship(SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude)]
public int? Property_C { get; set; }
}
public class BarEntity : BaseEntity
{
public int? Property_D { get; set; }
[SalesRelationship(SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude)]
public int? Property_E { get; set; }
public int? Property_F { get; set; }
}
Desired end result
Accessing FooEntity.PropertiesWithDoNotInclude returns a List<string> of:
{
"Property_A",
"Property_C"
}
Accessing BarEntity.PropertiesWithDoNotInclude returns a List<string> of:
{
"Property_E"
}

Two possible approaches:
Use attributes; decorate each subclass with an attribute, e.g.
[MyProperty(5)]
public class DerivedAlpha
{
}
[MyProperty(10)]
public class DerivedBeta
{
}
That only works when they're effectively constants, of course.
Use a dictionary:
var properties = new Dictionary<Type, int>
{
{ typeof(DerivedAlpha), 5) },
{ typeof(DerivedBeta), 10) },
};
EDIT: Now that we have more context, Ben's answer is a really good one, using the way that generics work in C#. It's like the dictionary example, but with laziness, thread-safety and simple global access all built in.

Jon has a good solution as usual, although I don't see what good attributes do here, since they have to be explicitly added to every subtype and they don't act like properties.
The Dictionary approach can definitely work. Here's another way to do that, which explicitly declares that there will be one variable per subclass of BaseEntity:
class FilteredProperties<T> where T : BaseEntity
{
static public List<string> Values { get; private set; }
// or static public readonly List<string> Values = new List<string>();
static FilteredProperties()
{
// logic to populate the list goes here
}
}
The drawback of this is that it's rather difficult to pair with a GetType() call such as you might use in methods of BaseEntity. A Dictionary, or wrapper thereto which implements lazy population, is better for that usage.

I just recently needed this same thing and came across this question. I think Jon's and Fried's ideas to use a Dictionary are on the right track but don't quite hit what I was looking for so I thought I'd show my own complete and very easy to extend implementation.
public class TypeStaticProperty<T>
{
T _defaultValue;
Dictionary<Type, T> _values = new Dictionary<Type, T>();
public TypeStaticProperty(T defalutValue = default)
{
_defaultValue = defalutValue;
}
public T Get(object caller)
{
lock (_values)
{
if (_values.TryGetValue(caller?.GetType(), out T val))
return val;
else
return _defaultValue;
}
}
public void Set(object caller, T val)
{
lock (_values)
_values[caller?.GetType()] = val;
}
}
And to demonstrate:
class TestBaseClass
{
static TypeStaticProperty<int> _property = new TypeStaticProperty<int>();
public int Property
{
get => _property.Get(this);
set => _property.Set(this, value);
}
}
class TestClass1 : TestBaseClass
{
}
class TestClass2 : TestBaseClass
{
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
TestClass1 test1a = new TestClass1();
TestClass1 test1b = new TestClass1();
test1a.Property = 1;
test1b.Property = 2;
TestClass2 test2a = new TestClass2();
TestClass2 test2b = new TestClass2();
test2a.Property = 3;
test2b.Property = 4;
Console.WriteLine($"test1a.Property = {test1a.Property}");
Console.WriteLine($"test1b.Property = {test1b.Property}");
Console.WriteLine($"test2a.Property = {test2a.Property}");
Console.WriteLine($"test2b.Property = {test2b.Property}");
}
}
Output:
test1a.Property = 2
test1b.Property = 2
test2a.Property = 4
test2b.Property = 4
So while you still need a class instance to access and set the property, the value will always be the same across all instances of that precise type. (This includes generics too; Foo<int> will be seen as a different type than Foo<string>). This has the huge advantage over Fried's example in that you don't need to know at compile time the precise type whose "static" value you're looking for when accessing or setting.
PS - For full disclosure, this was heavily inspired by the WPF source code, which uses a very similar pattern for DependencyProperty's and all kinds of other internal bells and whistles designed to improve performance and reduce memory footprint.

Specify interface member not by name but type

I have a lot of similar classes generated by svcutil from some external WSDL file. Any class has a Header property and string property which named class name + "1".
For instance, I have classes: SimpleRequest that has Header property and SimpleRequest1 property.
Another one is ComplexRequest that has Header property and ComplexRequest1 property.
So, I want to create a common interface for such classes. So, basically I can define something like that:
interface ISomeRequestClass {
string Header;
// here is some definition for `class name + "1"` properties...
}
Is it possible to define such member in interface?
Here is post edit goes...
Here is sample of generated class:
[System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThroughAttribute()]
[System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCodeAttribute("System.ServiceModel", "3.0.0.0")]
[System.ServiceModel.MessageContractAttribute(IsWrapped=false)]
public partial class SimpleRequest
{
public string Header;
[System.ServiceModel.MessageBodyMemberAttribute(Name="SimpleRequest", Namespace="data", Order=0)]
public SimpleRequestMsg SimpleRequest1;
public SimpleRequest()
{
}
public SimpleRequest(string Header, SimpleRequestMsg SimpleRequest1)
{
this.Header = Header;
this.SimpleRequest1 = SimpleRequest1;
}
}
POST EDIT 2
I changed definition of this annoying +1 property to represent real actual picture. It's all has different class types. So how can I pull it out to common interface?
POST EDIT 3
Here is coupled question that could bring more clarify.

EDIT (after seeing your code sample): Technically speaking, your code does not have a Header property, it has a Header field. This is an important difference, since you cannot specify fields in an interface. However, using the method described below, you can add properties to your classes that return the field values.
Is it possible to define such member in interface?
No, interface names cannot be dynamic. Anyway, such an interface would not be very useful. If you had an instance of class ISomeRequestClass, what name would you use to access that property?
You can, however, use explicit interface implementation:
interface ISomeRequestClass {
string Header { get; set; }
string ClassName1 { get; set; }
}
class SomeClass : ISomeRequestClass {
string Header { ... }
string SomeClass1 { ... }
// new: explicit interface implementation
string ISomeRequestClass.ClassName1 {
get { return SomeClass1; }
set { SomeClass1 = value; }
}
}

You could define your interface more generally:
interface ISomeRequestClass {
string HeaderProp {get; set;}
string Prop {get; set;}
}
And your concrete classes could be extended (in an extra code file) by mapping interface members to class fields like so:
public partial class SimpleRequest : ISomeRequestClass
{
public string HeaderProp
{
get
{
return Header;
}
set
{
Header = value;
}
}
public string Prop
{
get
{
return SimpleRequest1;
}
set
{
SimpleRequest1= value;
}
}
}

Putting aside for a moment the naming of your classes and properties.
If you're looking to create an interface with a property relevant to your specific +1 type, you have a couple of options.
Use a base class for your +1's
If both of your +1 classes inherit from the same base class you can use this in your interface definition:
public interface IFoo
{
[...]
PlusOneBaseType MyPlusOneObject{get;set;}
}
Create a generic property on your interface
This method allows you to specify the type for the +1 property as a generic parameter:
public interface IFoo<TPlusOneType>
{
[...]
TPlusOneType MyPlusOneObject{get;set;}
}
Which you might use like:
public class SimpleRequest : IFoo<SimpleRequest1>
{
[...]
}
Update
Given that your classes are partial classes, you could always create a second (non machine generated) version of the partial class that impliments your interface.

You mentioned svcutil so I assume you are using these classes as WCF DataContracts?
If that is the case then you could make use the name property of DataMemberAttribute.
interface IRequest
{
string Header { get; set; }
string Request1 { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
class SimpleRequest : IRequest
{
[DataMember]
public string Header { get; set; }
[DataMember(Name="SimpleRequest1"]
public string Request1 { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
class ComplexRequest : IRequest
{
[DataMember]
public string Header { get; set; }
[DataMember(Name="ComplexRequest1"]
public string Request1 { get; set; }
}
If you are concerned giving yourself more work when you regenerate the code at some point in the future, then I recommend you write a PowerShell script to do this transformation automatically. After all svcutil is just a script written by some guy at Microsoft. It is not magic or "correct" or "standard". Your script can make a call to scvutil and then make a few quick changes to the resulting file.
EDIT (After seeing your edit)
You are already using MessageBodyMemberAttribute's Name property so just change this:
public string SimpleRequest1;
To
public string Request1;

Do you actually need these classes to have a common interface? I'd be tempted to instead create a wrapper interface (or just a concrete class) which could then use reflection to access the fields in question:
// TODO: Make this class implement an appropriate new interface if you want
// to, for mocking purposes.
public sealed class RequestWrapper<TRequest, TMessage>
{
private static readonly FieldInfo headerField;
private static readonly FieldInfo messageField;
static RequestWrapper()
{
// TODO: Validation
headerField = typeof(TRequest).GetField("Header");
messageField = typeof(TRequest).GetField(typeof(TRequest).Name + "1");
}
private readonly TRequest;
public RequestWrapper(TRequest request)
{
this.request = request;
}
public string Header
{
get { return (string) headerField.GetValue(request); }
set { headerField.SetValue(request, value); }
}
public TMessage Message
{
get { return (TMessage) messageField.GetValue(request); }
get { messageField.SetValue(request, value); }
}
}
You could use expression trees to build delegates for this if the reflection proves too slow, but I'd stick to a simple solution to start with.
The advantage of this is that you only need to write this code once - but it does mean creating a wrapper around the real request objects, which the partial class answers don't.

Creating read-only versions of classes in a complex object structure

In my current project I need to be able to have both editable and read-only versions of classes. So that when the classes are displayed in a List or PropertGrid the user is not able to edit objects they should not be allowed to.
To do this I'm following the design pattern shown in the diagram below. I start with a read-only interface (IWidget), and then create an edtiable class which implements this interface (Widget). Next I create a read-only class (ReadOnlyWidget) which simply wraps the mutable class and also implements the read only interface.
I'm following this pattern for a number of different unrelated types. But now I want to add a search function to my program, which can generate results that include any variety of types including both mutable and immutable versions. So now I want to add another set of interfaces (IItem, IMutableItem) that define properties which apply to all types. So IItem defines a set of generic immutable properties, and IMutableItem defines the same properties but editable. In the end a search will return a collection of IItems, which can then later be cast to more specific types if needed.
Yet, I'm not sure if I'm setting up the relationships to IMutable and IItem correctly. Right now I have each of the interfaces (IWidget, IDooHickey) inheriting from IItem, and then the mutable classes (Widget, DooHickey) in addition also implement IMutableItem.
Alternatively, I was also thinking I could then set IMutableItem to inherit from IItem, which would hide its read-only properties with new properties that have both get and set accessors. Then the mutable classes would implement IMutableItem, and the read-only classes would implement IItem.
I'd appreciate any suggestions or criticisms regarding any of this.
Class Diagram
Code
public interface IItem
{
string ItemName { get; }
}
public interface IMutableItem
{
string ItemName { get; set; }
}
public interface IWidget:IItem
{
void Wiggle();
}
public abstract class Widget : IWidget, IMutableItem
{
public string ItemName
{
get;
set;
}
public void Wiggle()
{
//wiggle a little
}
}
public class ReadOnlyWidget : IWidget
{
private Widget _widget;
public ReadOnlyWidget(Widget widget)
{
this._widget = widget;
}
public void Wiggle()
{
_widget.Wiggle();
}
public string ItemName
{
get {return _widget.ItemName; }
}
}
public interface IDoohickey:IItem
{
void DoSomthing();
}
public abstract class Doohickey : IDoohickey, IMutableItem
{
public void DoSomthing()
{
//work it, work it
}
public string ItemName
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class ReadOnlyDoohickey : IDoohickey
{
private Doohickey _doohicky;
public ReadOnlyDoohickey(Doohickey doohicky)
{
this._doohicky = doohicky;
}
public string ItemName
{
get { return _doohicky.ItemName; }
}
public void DoSomthing()
{
this._doohicky.DoSomthing();
}
}

Is it OK to create another object when you need a readonly copy? If so then you can use the technique in the included code. If not, I think a wrapper is probably your best bet when it comes to this.
internal class Test
{
private int _id;
public virtual int ID
{
get
{
return _id;
}
set
{
if (ReadOnly)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot set properties on a readonly instance.");
}
}
}
private string _name;
public virtual string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
if (ReadOnly)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot set properties on a readonly instance.");
}
}
}
public bool ReadOnly { get; private set; }
public Test(int id = -1, string name = null)
: this(id, name, false)
{ }
private Test(int id, string name, bool readOnly)
{
ID = id;
Name = name;
ReadOnly = readOnly;
}
public Test AsReadOnly()
{
return new Test(ID, Name, true);
}
}

I would suggest that for each main class or interface, there be three defined classes: a "readable" class, a "changeable" class, and an "immutable" class. Only the "changeable" or "immutable" classes should exist as concrete types; they should both derive from an abstract "readable" class. Code which wants to store an object secure in the knowledge that it never changes should store the "immutable" class; code that wants to edit an object should use the "changeable" class. Code which isn't going to write to something but doesn't care if it holds the same value forever can accept objects of the "readable" base type.
The readable version should include public abstract methods AsChangeable(), AsImmutable(), public virtual method AsNewChangeable(), and protected virtual method AsNewImmutable(). The "changeable" classes should define AsChangeable() to return this, and AsImmutable to return AsNewImmutable(). The "immutable" classes should define AsChangeable() to return AsNewChangeable() and AsImmutable() to return this.
The biggest difficulty with all this is that inheritance doesn't work terribly well if one tries to use class types rather than interfaces. For example, if one would like to have an EnhancedCustomer class which inherits from BasicCustomer, then ImmutableEnhancedCustomer should inherit from both ImmutableBasicCustomer and ReadableEnhancedCustomer, but .net doesn't allow such dual inheritance. One could use an interface IImmutableEnhancedCustomer rather than a class, but some people would consider an 'immutable interace' to be a bit of a smell since there's no way a module that defines an interface in such a way that outsiders can use it without also allowing outsiders to define their own implementations.

Abandon hope all ye who enter here!!!
I suspect that in the long run your code is going to be very confusing. Your class diagram suggests that all properties are editable (or not) in a given object. Or are your (I'm)mutable interfaces introducing new properties that are all immutable or not, separate from the "core"/inheriting class?
Either way I think you're going to end up with playing games with property name variations and/or hiding inherited properties
Marker Interfaces Perhaps?
Consider making all properties in your classes mutable. Then implement IMutable (I don't like the name IItem) and IImutable as a marker interfaces. That is, there is literally nothing defined in the interface body. But it allows client code to handle the objects as a IImutable reference, for example.
This implies that either (a) your client code plays nice and respects it's mutability, or (b) all your objects are wrapped by a "controller" class that enforces the given object's mutability.

Could be too late :-), but the cause "The keyword 'new' is required on property because it hides property ..." is a bug in Resharper, no problem with the compiler. See the example below:
public interface IEntityReadOnly
{
int Prop { get; }
}
public interface IEntity : IEntityReadOnly
{
int Prop { set; }
}
public class Entity : IEntity
{
public int Prop { get; set; }
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var entity = new Entity();
(entity as IEntity).Prop = 2;
Assert.AreEqual(2, (entity as IEntityReadOnly).Prop);
}
}
Same for the case without interfaces. The only limitation, you can't use auto-properties
public class User
{
public User(string userName)
{
this.userName = userName;
}
protected string userName;
public string UserName { get { return userName; } }
}
public class UserUpdatable : User
{
public UserUpdatable()
: base(null)
{
}
public string UserName { set { userName = value; } }
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var user = new UserUpdatable {UserName = "George"};
Assert.AreEqual("George", (user as User).UserName);
}
}

How to get the name of the class

Ok, I have the following structure. Basically a plugin architecture
// assembly 1 - Base Class which contains the contract
public class BaseEntity {
public string MyName() {
// figure out the name of the deriving class
// perhaps via reflection
}
}
// assembly 2 - contains plugins based on the Base Class
public class BlueEntity : BaseEntity {}
public class YellowEntity : BaseEntity {}
public class GreenEntity : BaseEntity {}
// main console app
List<BaseEntity> plugins = Factory.GetMePluginList();
foreach (BaseEntity be in plugins) {
Console.WriteLine(be.MyName);
}
I'd like the statement
be.MyName
to tell me whether the object is BlueEntity, YellowEntity or GreenEntity. The important thing is that the MyName property should be in the base class, because I don't want to reimplement the property in every plugin.
Is this possible in C#?

I think you can do it through GetType:
public class BaseEntity {
public string MyName() {
return this.GetType().Name
}
}

public class BaseEntity {
public string MyName() {
return this.GetType().Name;
}
}
"this" will point to the derived class, so if you were to do:
BaseEntity.MyName
"BaseEntity"
BlueEntitiy.MyName
"BlueEntity"
EDIT: Doh, Gorky beat me to it.

C# implemented a way to look at objects called Reflection. This can return information about the object you are using.
The GetType() function returns the name of the class you are calling it on. You can use it like this:
return MyObject.GetType().Name;
Reflection can do a lot of things. If there is more that you want to know about reflection you can read about it on these websites:
MSDN Reflection Article
Oreilly Chapter
Code Source Tutorial

Change your foreach statement to the following
foreach (BaseEntity be in plugins) {
Console.WriteLine(be.GetType().Name);
}

If you haven't overridden the ToString() method for the class, then you can just write the following
string s = ToString().Split(',')[0]; // to get fully qualified class name... or,
s = s.Substring(s.LastIndexOf(".")+1); // to get just the actual class name itself
using yr code:
// assembly 1 - Base Class which contains the contractpublic class BaseEntity
{
public virtual string MyName // I changed to a property
{
get { return MyFullyQualifiedName.Substring(
MyFullyQualifiedName.LastIndexOf(".")+1); }
}
public virtual string MyFullyQualifiedName // I changed to a property
{
get { return ToString().Split(',')[0]; }
}
}
// assembly 2 - contains plugins based on the Base Class
public class BlueEntity : BaseEntity {}
public class YellowEntity : BaseEntity {}
public class GreenEntity : BaseEntity {}
// main console app
List<BaseEntity> plugins = Factory.GetMePluginList();
foreach (BaseEntity be in plugins)
{ Console.WriteLine(be.MyName);}

Try this pattern
class BaseEntity {
private readonly m_name as string;
public Name { get { return m_name; } }
protected BaseEntity(name as string) {
m_name = name;
}
}
class BlueEntity : BaseEntity {
public BlueEntity() : base(typeof(BlueEntity).Name) {}
}