Pretty straightforward: I'm looking to do the same as this but in winforms. Everything that google seems to pull up is wpf specific (ie. I don't want to reference presentationframework.dll)
Explained if you don't want to read the link:
The following is a representation of the intent of what I'd like to do, though it obviously doesn't work.
CheckBox1.DataBindings.Add(new Binding("Checked", this.object, "!SomeBool"));
You have two options:
Create the Binding object manually and attach to the Format and Parse events and swap the value in each.
Create an additional property on the class that just reverses the logic of the intended property
The first option is cleaner, IMO, as it doesn't force your class's API to follow your UI design, though the second option is (marginally) easier.
Example of Option 1
private void SwitchBool(object sender, ConvertEventArgs e)
{
e.Value = !((bool)e.Value);
}
...
Binding bind = new Binding("Checked", this.object, "SomeBool");
bind.Format += SwitchBool;
bind.Parse += SwitchBool;
CheckBox1.DataBindings.Add(bind);
Example of Option 2
public class SomeClass
{
public bool SomeBool { get; set; }
public bool NotSomeBool
{
get { return !SomeBool; }
set { SomeBool = !value; }
}
}
...
CheckBox1.DataBindings.Add("Checked", this.object, "NotSomeBool");
Again, I very much favor option 1, since option 2 requires that you tailor your class to your UI design.
Based on Adam's answer I wrote a small helper class:
class NegateBinding
{
string propertyName;
object dataSource;
string dataMember;
public NegateBinding(string propertyName, object dataSource, string dataMember)
{
this.propertyName = propertyName;
this.dataSource = dataSource;
this.dataMember = dataMember;
}
public static implicit operator Binding(NegateBinding eb)
{
var binding = new Binding(eb.propertyName, eb.dataSource, eb.dataMember, false, DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged);
binding.Parse += new ConvertEventHandler(negate);
binding.Format += new ConvertEventHandler(negate);
return binding;
}
static void negate(object sender, ConvertEventArgs e)
{
e.Value = !((bool)e.Value);
}
}
Now you can use it like this:
label1.DataBindings.Add(new NegateBinding("Visible", otherObject, "HasData"));
To do this, I´d do a readonly property named NotSomeBool, in the same class where you have the property SomeBool, and bind to this property instead.
Related
I am creating an application that uses several threads as a result I want to try to use UIControls in my code behind as few as possible. The way I do it is by binding the controls to a property in my code behind that way I will be able to update the control by changing that property it does not matter if that property is updated on a different thread. Anyways I am creating the following code in order for the class to create the bindings form me.
public static class MyExtensionMethods
{
public static TextBoxBind<T> BindTextBox<T>(this TextBox textbox, string property=null)
{
return new TextBoxBind<T>(textbox,property);
}
}
public class TextBoxBind<T> : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
string property;
protected T _Value;
public T Value
{
get { return _Value; }
set { _Value = value; OnPropertyChanged(property); }
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged = delegate { };
protected void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName){
PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
public TextBoxBind(TextBox textbox, string property)
{
if (property == null)
{
property = "Value";
}
this.property = property;
Binding b = new Binding(property)
{
Source = this
};
b.UpdateSourceTrigger = UpdateSourceTrigger.PropertyChanged;
textbox.SetBinding(TextBox.TextProperty, b);
}
}
And on my XAML I have:
<TextBox Name="textBox2" />
Therefore I will be able to use the first code that I posted as:
var newTextBox2 = textBox2.BindTextBox<int>();
newTextBox2.Value = 50; // this will update the textBox2.Text = "2"
// also every time I update the value of textBox2 newTextBox2.Value will update as well
The problem is when I try to bind it to a custom object. Take this code for example:
public class Person
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Age { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return Age.ToString();
}
}
void LogIn_Loaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
txtUsuario.Focus();
var newTextBox2 = textBox2.BindTextBox<Person>("Age");
// here newTextBox2 never updates....
}
When it comes to data binding one should update an object (doesn't matter CLR property or DependencyObject) from the same thread, as the UI is running at. If you have a UI element bound to something in code, updating that from a separate thread will lead to exception. However, you can always retrieve your UI thread and perform property update there.
Here's a piece of code, that I am using in a similar situation as you have:
ThreadStart updateLogs = delegate()
{
ObservableCollection<LogMessage> newLogs = this._parcer.Parce();
foreach (LogMessage log in newLogs)
LogMessages.Add(log);
};
App.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(updateLogs, null);
This block of code is running in a thread different to one UI is running at. So I extract the code, that actually updates the binding source (which is LogMessages) into a delegate updateLogs and then run this delegate in a UI thread, passing it to the application dispatcher.
Nevertheless, WPF application can have more than one Dispather if, for example, you create separate windows in separate threads, although this approach is rare. But just in case, DependencyObject class has a Dispatcher property, which references the Dispather that owns this object.
OnPropertyChanged(property); should be pointing to Value, since that's the Name of your Property.
This should not be pointing to the type T.
So this code is not right:
if (property == null)
{
property = "Value";
}
because property should always be "Value"
public T Value
{
get { return _Value; }
set { _Value = value; OnPropertyChanged("Value"); }
}
The following is a simple example of an enum which defines the state of an object and a class which shows the implementation of this enum.
public enum StatusEnum
{
Clean = 0,
Dirty = 1,
New = 2,
Deleted = 3,
Purged = 4
}
public class Example_Class
{
private StatusEnum _Status = StatusEnum.New;
private long _ID;
private string _Name;
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
set { _Status = value; }
}
public long ID
{
get { return _ID; }
set { _ID = value; }
}
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
}
when populating the class object with data from the database, we set the enum value to "clean". with the goal of keeping most of the logic out of the presentation layer, how can we set the enum value to "dirty" when a property is changed.
i was thinking something along the lines of;
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set
{
if (value != _Name)
{
_Name = value;
_Status = StatusEnum.Dirty;
}
}
}
in the setter of each property of the class.
does this sound like a good idea, does anyone have any better ideas on how the dirty flag can be assigned without doing so in the presentation layer.
When you really do want a dirty flag at the class level (or, for that matter, notifications) - you can use tricks like below to minimise the clutter in your properties (here showing both IsDirty and PropertyChanged, just for fun).
Obviously it is a trivial matter to use the enum approach (the only reason I didn't was to keep the example simple):
class SomeType : INotifyPropertyChanged {
private int foo;
public int Foo {
get { return foo; }
set { SetField(ref foo, value, "Foo"); }
}
private string bar;
public string Bar {
get { return bar; }
set { SetField(ref bar, value, "Bar"); }
}
public bool IsDirty { get; private set; }
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected void SetField<T>(ref T field, T value, string propertyName) {
if (!EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals(field, value)) {
field = value;
IsDirty = true;
OnPropertyChanged(propertyName);
}
}
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName) {
var handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null) {
handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
}
You might also choose to push some of that into an abstract base class, but that is a separate discussion
One option is to change it on write; another is to keep a copy of all the original values and compute the dirtiness when anyone asks for it. That has the added benefit that you can tell exactly which fields have changed (and in what way) which means you can issue minimal update statements and make merge conflict resolution slightly easier.
You also get to put all the dirtiness-checking in one place, so it doesn't pollute the rest of your code.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's an option worth considering.
If you want to implement it in this way, and you want to reduce the amount of code, you might consider applying Aspect Oriented Programming.
You can for instance use a compile-time weaver like PostSharp , and create an 'aspect' that can be applied to properties. This aspect then makes sure that your dirty flag is set when appropriate.
The aspect can look like this:
[Serializable]
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class ChangeTrackingAttribute : OnMethodInvocationAspect
{
public override void OnInvocation( MethodInvocationEventArgs e )
{
if( e.Delegate.Method.ReturnParameter.ParameterType == typeof(void) )
{
// we're in the setter
IChangeTrackable target = e.Delegate.Target as IChangeTrackable;
// Implement some logic to retrieve the current value of
// the property
if( currentValue != e.GetArgumentArray()[0] )
{
target.Status = Status.Dirty;
}
base.OnInvocation (e);
}
}
}
Offcourse, this means that the classes for which you want to implement ChangeTracking, should implement the IChangeTrackable interface (custom interface), which has at least the 'Status' property.
You can also create a custom attribute ChangeTrackingProperty, and make sure that the aspect that has been created above, is only applied to properties that are decorated with this ChangeTrackingProperty attribute.
For instance:
public class Customer : IChangeTrackable
{
public DirtyState Status
{
get; set;
}
[ChangeTrackingProperty]
public string Name
{ get; set; }
}
This is a little bit how I see it.
You can even make sure that PostSharp checks at compile-time whether classes that have properties that are decorated with the ChangeTrackingProperty attribute, implement the IChangeTrackable interface.
This method is based on a set of different concepts provided in this thread. I thought i'd put it out there for anyone that is looking for a way to do this cleanly and efficiently, as i was myself.
The key of this hybrid concept is that:
You don't want to duplicate the data to avoid bloating and resource hogging;
You want to know when the object's properties have changed from a given original/clean state;
You want to have the IsDirty flag be both accurate, and require little processing time/power to return the value; and
You want to be able to tell the object when to consider itself clean again. This is especially useful when building/working within the UI.
Given those requirements, this is what i came up with, and it seems to be working perfectly for me, and has become very useful when working against UIs and capturing user changes accurately. I have also posted an "How to use" below to show you how I use this in the UI.
The Object
public class MySmartObject
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Number { get; set; }
private int clean_hashcode { get; set; }
public bool IsDirty { get { return !(this.clean_hashcode == this.GetHashCode()); } }
public MySmartObject()
{
this.Name = "";
this.Number = -1;
MakeMeClean();
}
public MySmartObject(string name, int number)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Number = number;
MakeMeClean();
}
public void MakeMeClean()
{
this.clean_hashcode = this.Name.GetHashCode() ^ this.Number.GetHashCode();
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.Name.GetHashCode() ^ this.Number.GetHashCode();
}
}
It's simple enough and addresses all of our requirements:
The data is NOT duplicated for the dirty check...
This takes into account all property changes scenarios (see scenarios below)...
When you call the IsDirty property, a very simple and small Equals operation is performed and it is fully customizable via the GetHashCode override...
By calling the MakeMeClean method, you now have a clean object again!
Of course you can adapt this to encompass a bunch of different states... it's really up to you. This example only shows how to have a proper IsDirty flag operation.
Scenarios
Let's go over some scenarios for this and see what comes back:
Scenario 1
New object is created using empty constructor,
Property Name changes from "" to "James",
call to IsDirty returns True! Accurate.
Scenario 2
New object is created using paramters of "John" and 12345,
Property Name changes from "John" to "James",
Property Name changes back from "James" to "John",
Call to IsDirty returns False. Accurate, and we didn't have to duplicate the data to do it either!
How to use, a WinForms UI example
This is only an example, you can use this in many different ways from a UI.
Let's say you have a two forms ([A] and [B]).
The first([A]) is your main form, and the second([B]) is a form that allows the user to change the values within the MySmartObject.
Both the [A] and the [B] form have the following property declared:
public MySmartObject UserKey { get; set; }
When the user clicks a button on the [A] form, an instance of the [B] form is created, its property is set and it is displayed as a dialog.
After form [B] returns, the [A] form updates its property based on the [B] form's IsDirty check. Like this:
private void btn_Expand_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
SmartForm form = new SmartForm();
form.UserKey = this.UserKey;
if(form.ShowDialog() == DialogResult.OK && form.UserKey.IsDirty)
{
this.UserKey = form.UserKey;
//now that we have saved the "new" version, mark it as clean!
this.UserKey.MakeMeClean();
}
}
Also, in [B], when it is closing, you can check and prompt the user if they are closing the form with unsaved changes in it, like so:
private void BForm_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
//If the user is closing the form via another means than the OK button, or the Cancel button (e.g.: Top-Right-X, Alt+F4, etc).
if (this.DialogResult != DialogResult.OK && this.DialogResult != DialogResult.Ignore)
{
//check if dirty first...
if (this.UserKey.IsDirty)
{
if (MessageBox.Show("You have unsaved changes. Close and lose changes?", "Unsaved Changes", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo, MessageBoxIcon.Warning) == DialogResult.No)
e.Cancel = true;
}
}
}
As you can see from the examples above, this can be a very useful thing to have since it really streamlines the UI.
Caveats
Every time you implement this, you have to customize it to the object you're using. E.g.: there's no "easy" generic way of doing this without using reflection... and if you use reflection, you lose efficiency, especially in large and complex objects.
Hopefully this helps someone.
Take a look at PostSharp (http://www.postsharp.org/).
You can easily create a Attribute which marks it as dirty you can add the attrubute to each property that needs it and it keeps all your code in one place.
Roughly speaking Create an interface which has your status in make the class implement it.
Create an attribute which can be applied on properties and cast to your interface in order to set the value when something changes one of the marked properties.
Your approach is basically how I would do it. I would just
remove the setter for the Status property:
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
// set { _Status = value; }
}
and instead add a function
public SetStatusClean()
{
_Status = StatusEnum.Clean;
}
As well as SetStatusDeleted() and SetStatusPurged(), because I find it better indicates the intention.
Edit
Having read the answer by Jon Skeet, I need to reconsider my approach ;-) For simple objects I would stick with my way, but if it gets more complex, his proposal would lead to much better organised code.
If your Example_Class is lightweight, consider storing the original state and then comparing the current state to the original in order to determine the changes. If not your approach is the best because stroing the original state consumes a lot of system resources in this case.
Apart from the advice of 'consider making your type immutable', here's something I wrote up (and got Jon and Marc to teach me something along the way)
public class Example_Class
{ // snip
// all properties are public get and private set
private Dictionary<string, Delegate> m_PropertySetterMap;
public Example_Class()
{
m_PropertySetterMap = new Dictionary<string, Delegate>();
InitializeSettableProperties();
}
public Example_Class(long id, string name):this()
{ this.ID = id; this.Name = name; }
private void InitializeSettableProperties()
{
AddToPropertyMap<long>("ID", value => { this.ID = value; });
AddToPropertyMap<string>("Name", value => { this.Name = value; });
}
// jump thru a hoop because it won't let me cast an anonymous method to an Action<T>/Delegate
private void AddToPropertyMap<T>(string sPropertyName, Action<T> setterAction)
{ m_PropertySetterMap.Add(sPropertyName, setterAction); }
public void SetProperty<T>(string propertyName, T value)
{
(m_PropertySetterMap[propertyName] as Action<T>).Invoke(value);
this.Status = StatusEnum.Dirty;
}
}
You get the idea.. possible improvements: Use constants for PropertyNames & check if property has really changed.
One drawback here is that
obj.SetProperty("ID", 700); // will blow up int instead of long
obj.SetProperty<long>("ID", 700); // be explicit or use 700L
Here is how i do it.
In cases where i do not need to test for specific fields being dirty,
I have an abstract class:
public abstract class SmartWrap : ISmartWrap
{
private int orig_hashcode { get; set; }
private bool _isInterimDirty;
public bool IsDirty
{
get { return !(this.orig_hashcode == this.GetClassHashCode()); }
set
{
if (value)
this.orig_hashcode = this.orig_hashcode ^ 108.GetHashCode();
else
MakeClean();
}
}
public void MakeClean()
{
this.orig_hashcode = GetClassHashCode();
this._isInterimDirty = false;
}
// must be overridden to return combined hashcodes of fields testing for
// example Field1.GetHashCode() ^ Field2.GetHashCode()
protected abstract int GetClassHashCode();
public bool IsInterimDirty
{
get { return _isInterimDirty; }
}
public void SetIterimDirtyState()
{
_isInterimDirty = this.IsDirty;
}
public void MakeCleanIfInterimClean()
{
if (!IsInterimDirty)
MakeClean();
}
/// <summary>
/// Must be overridden with whatever valid tests are needed to make sure required field values are present.
/// </summary>
public abstract bool IsValid { get; }
}
}
As well as an interface
public interface ISmartWrap
{
bool IsDirty { get; set; }
void MakeClean();
bool IsInterimDirty { get; }
void SetIterimDirtyState();
void MakeCleanIfInterimClean();
}
This allows me to do partial saves, and preserve the IsDirty state if there is other details to save. Not perfect, but covers a lot of ground.
Example of usage with interim IsDirty State (Error wrapping and validation removed for clarity):
area.SetIterimDirtyState();
if (!UpdateClaimAndStatus(area))
return false;
area.MakeCleanIfInterimClean();
return true;
This is good for most scenarios, however for some classes i want to test for each field with a backing field of original data, and either return a list of changes or at least an enum of fields changed.
With an enum of fields changed i can then push that up through a message chain for selective update of fields in remote caches.
You could also think about boxing your variables, which comes at a performance cost, but also has its merits. It is pretty consise and you cannot accidentally change a value without setting your dirty status.
public class Variable<T>
{
private T _value;
private readonly Action<T> _onValueChangedCallback;
public Variable(Action<T> onValueChangedCallback, T value = default)
{
_value = value;
_onValueChangedCallback = onValueChangedCallback;
}
public void SetValue(T value)
{
if (!EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals(_value, value))
{
_value = value;
_onValueChangedCallback?.Invoke(value);
}
}
public T GetValue()
{
return _value;
}
public static implicit operator T(Variable<T> variable)
{
return variable.GetValue();
}
}
and then hook in a callback that marks your class as dirty.
public class Example_Class
{
private StatusEnum _Status = StatusEnum.New;
private Variable<long> _ID;
private Variable<string> _Name;
public StatusEnum Status
{
get { return _Status; }
set { _Status = value; }
}
public long ID => _ID;
public string Name => _Name;
public Example_Class()
{
_ID = new Variable<long>(l => Status = StatusEnum.Dirty);
_Name = new Variable<string>(s => Status = StatusEnum.Dirty);
}
}
Another method is to override the GetHashCode() method to somthing like this:
public override int GetHashCode() // or call it GetChangeHash or somthing if you dont want to override the GetHashCode function...
{
var sb = new System.Text.StringBuilder();
sb.Append(_dateOfBirth);
sb.Append(_marital);
sb.Append(_gender);
sb.Append(_notes);
sb.Append(_firstName);
sb.Append(_lastName);
return sb.ToString.GetHashCode();
}
Once loaded from the database, get the hash code of the object. Then just before you save check if the current hash code is equal to the previous hash code. if they are the same, don't save.
Edit:
As people have pointed out this causes the hash code to change - as i use Guids to identify my objects, i don't mind if the hashcode changes.
Edit2:
Since people are adverse to changing the hash code, instead of overriding the GetHashCode method, just call the method something else. The point is detecting a change not whether i use guids or hashcodes for object identification.
Objective-c/cocoa offers a form of binding where a control's properties (ie text in a textbox) can be bound to the property of an object. I am trying to duplicate this functionality in C# w/ .Net 3.5.
I have created the following very simple class in the file MyClass.cs:
class MyClass
{
private string myName;
public string MyName
{
get
{
return myName;
}
set
{
myName = value;
}
}
public MyClass()
{
myName = "Allen";
}
}
I also created a simple form with 1 textbox and 1 button. I init'd one instance of Myclass inside the form code and built the project. Using the DataSource Wizard in Vs2008, I selected to create a data source based on object, and selected the MyClass assembly. This created a datasource entity. I changed the databinding of the textbox to this datasource; however, the expected result (that the textbox's contents would be "allen") was not achieved. Further, putting text into the textbox is not updating the name property of the object.
I know i'm missing something fundamental here. At some point i should have to tie my instance of the MyClass class that i initialized inside the form code to the textbox, but that hasn't occurred. Everything i've looked at online seems to gloss over using DataBinding with an object (or i'm missing the mark entirely), so any help is great appreciated.
Edit:
Utilizing what I learned by the answers, I looked at the code generated by Visual Studio, it had the following:
this.myClassBindingSource.DataSource = typeof(BindingTest.MyClass);
if I comment that out and substitute:
this.myClassBindingSource.DataSource = new MyClass();
I get the expected behavior. Why is the default code generated by VS like it is? Assuming this is more correct than the method that works, how should I modify my code to work within the bounds of what VS generated?
You must assign the textbox's data source to be your new datasource. But additionally, you must assign the datasource's datasource to be an instance of your class.
MyDataSource.DataSource = new MyClass();
TextBox1.DataSource = MyDataSource;
That should work for your first pass. As others have mentioned, you may need to implement additional interfaces on your class (INotifyPropertyChanged etc), if you are going to be modifying the class properties via any background processes.
If you are only updating the properties via the form, then you do not need this step.
You should implement the INotifyPropertyChanged interface to your MyClass type:
public class MyClass : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private string _myName;
public string MyName
{
get { return _myName; }
set
{
if( _myName != value )
{
_myName = value;
OnPropertyChanged("MyName");
}
}
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
private void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
if( PropertyChanged != null )
PropertyChanged( this , new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName) );
}
}
This interface is required for the DataBinding infrastructure if you want to support simple databinding.
The INotifyPropertyChanged interface is used to notify a 'binding' that a property has changed, so the DataBinding infrastructure can act accordingly to it.
Then, you can databind the MyName property to the Text Property of the textbox.
I get an error message in the DataBinding.Add("TEXT", myObject, myObjectProperty) method
This is probably because you're missing the explicit {get;set;} on the property declaration!
BAD:
public string FirstName; //<-- you will not be able to bind to this property!
GOOD:
public string FirstName { get; set; }
Looks like you probably need a Bindable attribute on your MyName property (and follow Frederik's suggestion as well):
[System.ComponentModel.Bindable(true)]
public string MyName
{
get { return _myName; }
set
{
if( _myName != value )
{
_myName = value;
OnPropertyChanged("MyName");
}
}
}
Via: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327413
I don't have any code in front of me, but I think the data source is kind of like a collection. You have to add an instance of MyClass to the data source, and that's what the form fields will bind to. There's also methods for navigating through the data source to multiple instances of MyClass, but it doesn't sound like you need that. Check the docs for DataSource.
I don't think you need to implement any fancy interfaces. I seem to remember there's a method on the data source that lets you refresh or rebind the current item after you change some values.
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class SiteDataItem
{
private string _text;
private string _url;
private int _id;
private int _parentId;
public string Text
{
get
{
return _text;
}
set
{
_text = value;
}
}
public string Url
{
get
{
return _url;
}
set
{
_url = value;
}
}
public int ID
{
get
{
return _id;
}
set
{
_id = value;
}
}
public int ParentID
{
get
{
return _parentId;
}
set
{
_parentId = value;
}
}
public SiteDataItem(int id, int parentId, string text, string url)
{
_id = id;
_parentId = parentId;
_text = text;
_url = url;
}
public static List<SiteDataItem> GetSiteData()
{
List<SiteDataItem> siteData = new List<SiteDataItem>();
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(1, 0, "All Sites", ""));
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(2, 1, "Search Engines", ""));
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(3, 1, "News Sites", ""));
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(4, 2, "Yahoo", "http://www.yahoo.com"));
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(5, 2, "MSN", "http://www.msn.com"));
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(6, 2, "Google", "http://www.google.com"));
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(7, 3, "CNN", "http://www.cnn.com"));
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(8, 3, "BBC", "http://www.bbc.co.uk"));
siteData.Add(new SiteDataItem(9, 3, "FOX", "http://www.foxnews.com"));
return siteData;
}
}
More detail you can read tutorial dapfor. com
I want to create a method that changes enabled property. How do I pass the contorl name and property to a method.
If the following were my original method:
public void ChangeProperties()
{
btnAcesScore.Enabled = true;
}
I want to be able to change the "btnAcesScore" each time I call this method. How do I pass this to the method. I tried passing it as a string but that doesn't work.
Here is what I tried:
public void ChangeProperties(string category)
{
category = true;
}
ChangeProperties("btnAcesScore.Enabled");
Susan
Try this :
public void ChangeProperties(Control ctrl)
{
ctrl.Enabled = true;
}
and call it like that :
ChangeProperties(btnAcesScore);
What exactly is the purpose of this? Is it to reuse the method to arbitrarily change the Enabled property of any given control? If so, there is an easier way to accomplish it, as outlined by Canavar.
Or is the point of this method to toggle the setting? In which case, your method would look either like:
public void ChangeProperties()
{
btnAcesScore.Enabled = !btnAcesScore.Enabled;
}
or
public void ChangeProperties(Control ctrl)
{
ctrl.Enabled = !ctrl.Enabled;
}
depending on whether you wanted to hit just the one control, or provide access to many. In any event, I personally don't see much point to encapsulating a single property access within a method, and if you were insistent (and this method didn't adjust other properties), I'd at least rename it to something like ToggleEnabled.
Since the original question had a reflection tag I think she wanted a reflection answer (whether or not that is good design) so here is a Reflection answer.
the form has a controls collection and with this you can search for it and use reflection to set the property:
public void ChangeProperties(Form form, string category)
{
string[] parts = category.Split(".");
int index = form.Controls.IndexOfKey(parts[0]);
Control control = null;
if (index >= 0)
{
control = form.Controls[index].;
}
if (control != null)
{
PropertyInfo propertyInfo = control.GetType().GetProperty(parts[1]);
if (propertyInfo != null)
{
propertyInfo.SetValue(control, true);
}
}
}
if you call it from the form the control lives on
ChangeProperties(this, "btnAcesScore.Enabled");
How about also
void ChangeProperty(ref bool output)
{
output = true;
}
ChangeProperty(ref btnAcesScore.Enabled);
Not sure I totally understand your intent, but you could pass a delegate to some code that changed your property...
public void ChangeProperties(Action<bool> setprop)
{
...
setprop(true);
}
then call it:
ChangeProperties(b => btnAcesScore.Enabled = b);
I'd use reflection - use the GetType() Method on the object you send through to your method and then use the GetProperties to match against the property you send through. You can then set the values at that point.
Try this:
public void ChangeProperties(string category, object value)
{
var categoryConcat = category.Split('.');
var control = this.Controls.Cast<Control>()
.Where(x => x.Name == categoryConcat[0]).First();
control.GetType().GetProperty(categoryConcat[1])
.SetValue(control, value);
}
The example probably needs some checks on the existance of the control and the property.
Main()
{
ChangeProperties(ref category,True); //Where Category is the ID of the Textbox control i.e <asp:textbox ID="Category "></textbox>
}
public void ChangeProperties(ref TextBox category,bool val)
{
category.Enabled = val;
}
Actually i'm working with C# and already got DataBinding and Serialization to work. But now i'd like to combine both methods in one class and i have a little problem with it.
So let's start with a little sample class:
using System;
using System.Runtime.Serialization;
using System.Windows.Forms;
namespace MySample
{
[DataContract(IsReference = true)]
class SerializeAndBind : IExtensibleDataObject
{
[DataMember]
private String bindedControlName;
[DataMember]
private String bindedPropertyName;
private DateTime creationTime;
[System.ComponentModel.Browsable(false)]
public virtual ExtensionDataObject ExtensionData { get; set; }
public event EventHandler CreationTimeChanged;
public SerializeAndBind()
{
CreationTime = DateTime.Now;
}
public SerializeAndBind(Control ControlName, String PropertyName)
: this()
{
InitializeDataBinding(ControlName, PropertyName);
}
[DataMember]
public DateTime CreationTime
{
get
{
return creationTime;
}
set
{
creationTime = value;
if (CreationTimeChanged != null)
CreationTimeChanged(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
return CreationTime.ToString();
}
[OnDeserialized]
private void InitializeDataBindingAfterDeserialization(StreamingContext ctx)
{
if (bindedControlName != null)
{
Control control;
control = FindControlByName(bindedControlName);
if(control != null)
InitializeDataBinding(control, bindedPropertyName);
}
}
private void InitializeDataBinding(Control ControlName, string PropertyName)
{
BindingSource bindingSource = new BindingSource();
bindingSource.DataSource = this;
Binding binding = new Binding(PropertyName, bindingSource, "CreationTime", true, DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged);
binding.Format += new ConvertEventHandler(OnFormat);
ControlName.DataBindings.Add(binding);
bindedControlName = ControlName.Name;
bindedPropertyName = PropertyName;
}
private void OnFormat(object sender, ConvertEventArgs e)
{
if (e.DesiredType == typeof(String))
{
e.Value = this.ToString();
}
}
}
}
As you can see this class has a ctor which takes the Control and PropertyName to which you like to bind this object. For Serialization i save the Control and PropertyName as a string (saving the whole control would be a little to much ;-)).
And i added a function which will be called after deserialization. But as you can see there exists the function FindControlByName() within that doesn't exists.
Now i could start using Reflection to find the appropiate control, but for reflection i need some kind of starting point (i would say the form), but how can the class access this without knowing anything outside of itself?
Or is this just the wrong way to do it and i need a different design?
Any help would be appreciate,
Oliver
I agree with previous post, break out your processing from your data. Much cleaner and easier to debug, maintain and scale.
Personally, I doubt that this is ever going to be "clean" - serialization works well for data, but not so well for objects tightly connected to objects outside of the serialization graph.
At the point of deserialization, the object is in the ether (in fact, DataContractSerializer doesn't even use any constructor). As such, it has no way of getting to a form, etc. You could perhaps do some horrible hacks with a static field (perhaps [ThreadStatic]) to hold the current form, but it would be brittle and ugly.
(I'm hopeful that somebody will have a better answer, though!)