We Keep Coding

Class design - ctor or properties with public setter

Pretty simple question, say I have a class with 20 reference type properties that I know will only be set at class creation/immediately after class is created and where none of the properties are really mandatory.
In this scenario, would best practice be to create a ctor accepting 20 properties (which, since they are all reference types, would still allow you to pass null if you wanted to) and to ensure none of my properties have a setter
or ...
To simply not have a ctor at all and just provide a setter for all of my properties?
I am leaning towards the latter because of ease of implementation and (arguably) cleaner code even though that doesn't guarantee object immutability, but again these classes are only used internally and I know that I won't be changing them anyway.
EDIT
If you're going to vote to close the question, at least have the decency of explaining why you think the question is not "good enough" for the ohh-so-high SO standards.
If this is not a question that belongs here, I really don't know what SO is for anymore.

If all these properties aren't mandatory and they don't have to be readonly, you don't need a constructor. No one wants to call a constructor that takes 20 arguments, especially if they aren't necessary.
So even if this question tends to be subjective, use properties and omit the constructor.

You should make them properties and use an object initializer:
class Cat
{
// Auto-implemented properties.
public int Age { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public object OtherProperty { get; set; }
}
Cat cat = new Cat { Age = 10, Name = "Fluffy" };
This gives you nice compact code, without having to specify the properties you don't need. Even if you do specify all the properties, it's not much longer.
I'd use a constructor where properties are mandatory, or based on some sort of source object like a DataRow or file.

It looks like Single Responsibility Principle violation. It's recommended to have 0-3 parameters in method including constructor.

Design issue in C#: Generics or polymorphism or both?

I need some help with a design issue I'm having. What I try to achieve is this:
I have a main class called Document. This Class has a list of Attribute classes. These Attribute classes have some common properties such as Identity and Name, but they differ in one property I call Value. The Value type is different for each different Attribute class and be of type string, integer, List, DateTime, float, List and also classes that consists of several properties. One example would be a class I would call PairAttribute that have 2 properties: Title and Description.
What I try to achieve is type safety for Value property of the Attribute child classes and that these child classes should be able to be added to the Attribute list in the Document class. I could have made only one Attribute class that have a Value property of type object and be done with it, but that is exactly what I try to avoid here.
The common properties (Identity and Name) should be placed in a base class I guess, lets call that AttributeBase class. But I want to have a child class, say StringAttribute, where the Value property is of type string, a IntegerAttribute class where the Value property is of type Integer, a StringListAttribute where the Value property is of type List, a PairAttribute class where the Value is a class with several properties, etc
Do you know how I can implement this? Is this a solution I should go for at all or is it a better ways of solving this type safety issue? I would appreciate code examples for clarification:)

You don't specify a language, but the feature described by the term "generics" (as used by Java and C#) is often called "parametric polymorphism" in other languages (like ML and Haskell). Conversely, the common meaning of "polymorphism" in Java and C# is actually more precisely called "subtype polymorphism".
The point is, whether you are using subtype polymorphism or parametric polymorphism, either way your problem calls for polymorphism, so I think you're on the right track.
The question really boils down to: when is parametric polymorphism better than subtype polymorphism? The answer is actually quite simple: when it requires you to write less code.
So, I'd suggest you prototype both approaches, and then see which one leads to simpler, easier to understand code. Then do it that way.

You may pass with a generic Attribute instead of inheritance/method polymorphism, but you will need to store them in some list and for that you will need an interface, because datastores in .Net cannot be a collections of undefined generic types, and if you would define them you would not be able to mix types inside:
public interface IAttribute {
string Identity { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
T GetValue<T>();
}
public class Attribute<T> : IAttribute
{
public string Identity { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public T Value { get; set; }
public Tret GetValue<Tret>() {
return (Tret)(Object)Value;
}
}
static class Program
{
/// <summary>
/// The main entry point for the application.
/// </summary>
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
List<IAttribute> lst = new List<IAttribute>();
Attribute<string> attr1 = new Attribute<string>();
attr1.Value = "test";
Attribute<int> attr2 = new Attribute<int>();
attr2.Value = 2;
lst.Add(attr1);
lst.Add(attr2);
string attr1val = lst[0].GetValue<string>();
int attr2val = lst[1].GetValue<int>();
}
}
The (Tret)(Object) actually does not change type, it only boxes T and the (Tret) unboxes the value without using middle variables. This will of course fail if you miss the right type when calling GetValue<type>(). Even if compatible types are sent like Value is integer and you do GetValue<double>() -> because unboxing an integer into a double is not allowed.
Boxing/Unboxing is not as fast as casting but it ensures type safety is preserved, and there is at my knowledge no way to use generics with an compile time known interface in some other way.
So this should be type safe... and without a lot of code.

When building POCOs or simple DTOs, can I use structs instead of classes?

public class Customer
{
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
public struct Customer
{
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}

Your second snippet is a mutable struct. That's a really bad idea, IMO - they behave oddly in various different situations, as values can be copied when you may not expect them to be.
You could create immutable structs of course, and there are times when that's appropriate - but personally I find the reference type behaviour more natural usually. With structs, you also need to worry about the fact that whatever constructors you put in place, it's always possible to set a variable to the default value - so the fields will be zero for numeric types, null for reference types etc. It's annoying to have to deal with the possibility of an invalid object everywhere, whereas with classes you can add appropriate validation to the constructor (or factory methods) to make sure that the only thing you need to worry about is a null reference.
The efficiency argument ends up tricky, as there are pros and cons on both sides, depending on exactly what you do with the objects.
To cut a long answer short (too late?) - I would use classes by default; save value types for things which are natural individual values ("an instant in time", or "an integer" for example).

Here is a link with differences between structs and classes:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288471%28VS.71%29.aspx
It claims structs are more efficient but I would think that pass by ref is more efficient then pass by value for large data.
This may be a problem:
" Although the CLR allows it, C# does
not allow structs to have a default
parameterless constructor. The reason
is that, for a value type, compilers
by default neither generate a default
constructor, nor do they generate a
call to the default constructor. So,
even if you happened to define a
default constructor, it will not be
called and that will only confuse you.
To avoid such problems, the C#
compiler disallows definition of a
default constructor by the user. And
because it doesn't generate a default
constructor, you can't initialize
fields when defining them, like:
Collapse
struct MyWrongFoo {
int x = 1; }
Remember, the compiler puts all this
initialization code into the
constructor (every constructor), and
because there's no default
constructor, you can't do the
initialization.
Now, for the fun part.. You normally
instantiate a struct like this:"
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/structs_in_csharp.aspx

POCOs and DTOs are not the same thing.
A POCO is a business object that would typically have state and behaviour.
A DTO is a lightweight object for transferring state between application layers.
I would obviously use classes for POCOs, and also for DTOs.

C# Is there any benefit to assigning class properties in the class constructor?

For instance, if I have a class like this:
namespace Sample
{
public Class TestObject
{
private Object MyAwesomeObject = new MyAwesomeObject();
}
}
Is there any benefit to set it up so that the property is set in the constructor like this?
namespace Sample
{
public Class TestObject
{
private Object MyAwesomeObject;
public TestObject()
{
MyAwesomeObject = new MyAwesomeObject()
}
}
}

The two are (nearly) identical.
When you define the initializer inline:
private Object MyAwesomeObject = new MyAwesomeObject();
This will happen prior to the class constructor code. This is often nicer, but does have a couple of limitations.
Setting it up in the constructor lets you use constructor parameters to initialize your members. Often, this is required in order to get more information into your class members.
Also, when you setup values in your constructors, you can use your class data in a static context, which is not possible to do with inlined methods. For example, if you want to initialize something using an expression tree, this often needs to be in a constructor, since the expression tree is in a static context, which will not be allowed to access your class members in an inlined member initializer.

It makes it easier to do step by step debugging
It makes it easier to control the order in which you call constructors
It makes it possible to send parameters to the constructors based on some logic or passed in argument to the object you are working on.

Another nice property of initializing stuff at the declaration site is that doing so on readonly fields guarantees that the field is not observable in its default (initiaized to zero) state.
Here's my article on the subject:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2008/02/18/why-do-initializers-run-in-the-opposite-order-as-constructors-part-two.aspx

The only benefit is that you can be a bit more dynamic in the constructor, where inline initialization requires that you only use static values for constructor arguments and such. For example, if MyAwesomeObject needs the value from a config file, you would have to set that in the constructor

Fields are initialized immediately
before the constructor for the object
instance is called. If the constructor
assigns the value of a field, it will
overwrite any value given during field
declaration.
See Fields (C# Programming Guide).

In your particular example, there's no advantage.
There is, however, lazy instantiation, which reduces your memory footprint in many cases:
namespace Sample
{
public Class TestObject
{
private Object m_MyAwesomeObject;
public TestObject()
{
}
public Object MyAwesomeObject
{
get
{
if (m_MyAwesomeObject == null)
m_MyAwesomeObject = new Object();
return m_MyAwesomeObject;
}
}
}
}

I like to keep all initialization for any class property whether primitive or object in the class constructor(s). Keeps the code easier to read. Easier to debug. Plus the intention of a constructor is to initialize your classes properties.
Also for clients developing against your classes it's nice to make sure that all your properties get a default value and all objects get created. Avoids the NullReferenceExceptions, when a client is using your class. For me putting this all in constructors makes it easier to manage.

I do not like to duplicate code, even if it is among a (hopefully) small number of constructors. To that end I tend to favor inline initialization wherever it makes sense.

Generally, requiring a non-default constructor ensures that the instance is in something other than the default state. This also allows immutable classes, which have their own advantages.

Immutable object pattern in C# - what do you think? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have over the course of a few projects developed a pattern for creating immutable (readonly) objects and immutable object graphs. Immutable objects carry the benefit of being 100% thread safe and can therefore be reused across threads. In my work I very often use this pattern in Web applications for configuration settings and other objects that I load and cache in memory. Cached objects should always be immutable as you want to guarantee they are not unexpectedly changed.
Now, you can of course easily design immutable objects as in the following example:
public class SampleElement
{
private Guid id;
private string name;
public SampleElement(Guid id, string name)
{
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
}
public Guid Id
{
get { return id; }
}
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
}
}
This is fine for simple classes - but for more complex classes I do not fancy the concept of passing all values through a constructor. Having setters on the properties is more desirable and your code constructing a new object gets easier to read.
So how do you create immutable objects with setters?
Well, in my pattern objects start out as being fully mutable until you freeze them with a single method call. Once an object is frozen it will stay immutable forever - it cannot be turned into a mutable object again. If you need a mutable version of the object, you simply clone it.
Ok, now on to some code. I have in the following code snippets tried to boil the pattern down to its simplest form. The IElement is the base interface that all immutable objects must ultimately implement.
public interface IElement : ICloneable
{
bool IsReadOnly { get; }
void MakeReadOnly();
}
The Element class is the default implementation of the IElement interface:
public abstract class Element : IElement
{
private bool immutable;
public bool IsReadOnly
{
get { return immutable; }
}
public virtual void MakeReadOnly()
{
immutable = true;
}
protected virtual void FailIfImmutable()
{
if (immutable) throw new ImmutableElementException(this);
}
...
}
Let's refactor the SampleElement class above to implement the immutable object pattern:
public class SampleElement : Element
{
private Guid id;
private string name;
public SampleElement() {}
public Guid Id
{
get
{
return id;
}
set
{
FailIfImmutable();
id = value;
}
}
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
FailIfImmutable();
name = value;
}
}
}
You can now change the Id property and the Name property as long as the object has not been marked as immutable by calling the MakeReadOnly() method. Once it is immutable, calling a setter will yield an ImmutableElementException.
Final note:
The full pattern is more complex than the code snippets shown here. It also contains support for collections of immutable objects and complete object graphs of immutable object graphs. The full pattern enables you to turn an entire object graph immutable by calling the MakeReadOnly() method on the outermost object. Once you start creating larger object models using this pattern the risk of leaky objects increases. A leaky object is an object that fails to call the FailIfImmutable() method before making a change to the object. To test for leaks I have also developed a generic leak detector class for use in unit tests. It uses reflection to test if all properties and methods throw the ImmutableElementException in the immutable state.
In other words TDD is used here.
I have grown to like this pattern a lot and find great benefits in it. So what I would like to know is if any of you are using similar patterns? If yes, do you know of any good resources that document it? I am essentially looking for potential improvements and for any standards that might already exist on this topic.

For info, the second approach is called "popsicle immutability".
Eric Lippert has a series of blog entries on immutability starting here. I'm still getting to grips with the CTP (C# 4.0), but it looks interesting what optional / named parameters (to the .ctor) might do here (when mapped to readonly fields)...
[update: I've blogged on this here]
For info, I probably wouldn't make those methods virtual - we probably don't want subclasses being able to make it non-freezable. If you want them to be able to add extra code, I'd suggest something like:
[public|protected] void Freeze()
{
if(!frozen)
{
frozen = true;
OnFrozen();
}
}
protected virtual void OnFrozen() {} // subclass can add code here.
Also - AOP (such as PostSharp) might be a viable option for adding all those ThrowIfFrozen() checks.
(apologies if I have changed terminology / method names - SO doesn't keep the original post visible when composing replies)

Another option would be to create some kind of Builder class.
For an example, in Java (and C# and many other languages) String is immutable. If you want to do multiple operations to create a String you use a StringBuilder. This is mutable, and then once you're done you have it return to you the final String object. From then on it's immutable.
You could do something similar for your other classes. You have your immutable Element, and then an ElementBuilder. All the builder would do is store the options you set, then when you finalize it it constructs and returns the immutable Element.
It's a little more code, but I think it's cleaner than having setters on a class that's supposed to be immutable.

After my initial discomfort about the fact that I had to create a new System.Drawing.Point on each modification, I've wholly embraced the concept some years ago. In fact, I now create every field as readonly by default and only change it to be mutable if there's a compelling reason – which there is surprisingly rarely.
I don't care very much about cross-threading issues, though (I rarely use code where this is relevant). I just find it much, much better because of the semantic expressiveness. Immutability is the very epitome of an interface which is hard to use incorrectly.

You are still dealing with state, and thus can still be bitten if your objects are parallelized before being made immutable.
A more functional way might be to return a new instance of the object with each setter. Or create a mutable object and pass that in to the constructor.

The (relatively) new Software Design paradigm called Domain Driven design, makes the distinction between entity objects and value objects.
Entity Objects are defined as anything that has to map to a key-driven object in a persistent data store, like an employee, or a client, or an invoice, etc... where changing the properties of the object implies that you need to save the change to a data store somewhere, and the existence of multiple instances of a class with the same "key" imnplies a need to synchronize them, or coordinate their persistence to the data store so that one instance' changes do not overwrite the others. Changing the properties of an entity object implies you are changing something about the object - not changing WHICH object you are referencing...
Value objects otoh, are objects that can be considered immutable, whose utility is defined strictly by their property values, and for which multiple instances, do not need to be coordinated in any way... like addresses, or telephone numbers, or the wheels on a car, or the letters in a document... these things are totally defined by their properties... an uppercase 'A' object in an text editor can be interchanged transparently with any other uppercase 'A' object throughout the document, you don't need a key to distinguish it from all the other 'A's In this sense it is immutable, because if you change it to a 'B' (just like changing the phone number string in a phone number object, you are not changing the data associated with some mutable entity, you are switching from one value to another... just as when you change the value of a string...

Expanding on the point by #Cory Foy and #Charles Bretana where there is a difference between entities and values. Whereas value-objects should always be immutable, I really don't think that an object should be able to freeze themselves, or allow themselves to be frozen arbitrarily in the codebase. It has a really bad smell to it, and I worry that it could get hard to track down where exactly an object was frozen, and why it was frozen, and the fact that between calls to an object it could change state from thawed to frozen.
That isn't to say that sometimes you want to give a (mutable) entity to something and ensure it isn't going to be changed.
So, instead of freezing the object itself, another possibility is to copy the semantics of ReadOnlyCollection< T >
List<int> list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3};
ReadOnlyCollection<int> readOnlyList = list.AsReadOnly();
Your object can take a part as mutable when it needs it, and then be immutable when you desire it to be.
Note that ReadOnlyCollection< T > also implements ICollection< T > which has an Add( T item) method in the interface. However there is also bool IsReadOnly { get; } defined in the interface so that consumers can check before calling a method that will throw an exception.
The difference is that you can't just set IsReadOnly to false. A collection either is or isn't read only, and that never changes for the lifetime of the collection.
It would be nice at time to have the const-correctness that C++ gives you at compile time, but that starts to have it's own set of problems and I'm glad C# doesn't go there.
ICloneable - I thought I'd just refer back to the following:
Do not implement ICloneable
Do not use ICloneable in public APIs
Brad Abrams - Design Guidelines, Managed code and the .NET Framework

System.String is a good example of a immutable class with setters and mutating methods, only that each mutating method returns a new instance.

This is an important problem, and I've love to see more direct framework/language support to solve it. The solution you have requires a lot of boilerplate. It might be simple to automate some of the boilerplate by using code generation.
You'd generate a partial class that contains all the freezable properties. It would be fairly simple to make a reusable T4 template for this.
The template would take this for input:
namespace
class name
list of property name/type tuples
And would output a C# file, containing:
namespace declaration
partial class
each of the properties, with the corresponding types, a backing field, a getter, and a setter which invokes the FailIfFrozen method
AOP tags on freezable properties could also work, but it would require more dependencies, whereas T4 is built into newer versions of Visual Studio.
Another scenario which is very much like this is the INotifyPropertyChanged interface. Solutions for that problem are likely to be applicable to this problem.

My problem with this pattern is that you're not imposing any compile-time restraints upon immutability. The coder is responsible for making sure an object is set to immutable before for example adding it to a cache or another non-thread-safe structure.
That's why I would extend this coding pattern with a compile-time restraint in the form of a generic class, like this:
public class Immutable<T> where T : IElement
{
private T value;
public Immutable(T mutable)
{
this.value = (T) mutable.Clone();
this.value.MakeReadOnly();
}
public T Value
{
get
{
return this.value;
}
}
public static implicit operator Immutable<T>(T mutable)
{
return new Immutable<T>(mutable);
}
public static implicit operator T(Immutable<T> immutable)
{
return immutable.value;
}
}
Here's a sample how you would use this:
// All elements of this list are guaranteed to be immutable
List<Immutable<SampleElement>> elements =
new List<Immutable<SampleElement>>();
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++)
{
SampleElement newElement = new SampleElement();
newElement.Id = Guid.NewGuid();
newElement.Name = "Sample" + i.ToString();
// The compiler will automatically convert to Immutable<SampleElement> for you
// because of the implicit conversion operator
elements.Add(newElement);
}
foreach (SampleElement element in elements)
Console.Out.WriteLine(element.Name);
elements[3].Value.Id = Guid.NewGuid(); // This will throw an ImmutableElementException

Just a tip to simplify the element properties: Use automatic properties with private set and avoid explicitly declaring the data field. e.g.
public class SampleElement {
public SampleElement(Guid id, string name) {
Id = id;
Name = name;
}
public Guid Id {
get; private set;
}
public string Name {
get; private set;
}
}

Here is a new video on Channel 9 where Anders Hejlsberg from 36:30 in the interview starts talking about immutability in C#. He gives a very good use case for popsicle immutability and explains how this is something you are currently required to implement yourself. It was music to my ears hearing him say it is worth thinking about better support for creating immutable object graphs in future versions of C#
Expert to Expert: Anders Hejlsberg - The Future of C#

Two other options for your particular problem that haven't been discussed:
Build your own deserializer, one that can call a private property setter. While the effort in building the deserializer at the beginning will be much more, it makes things cleaner. The compiler will keep you from even attempting to call the setters and the code in your classes will be easier to read.
Put a constructor in each class that takes an XElement (or some other flavor of XML object model) and populates itself from it. Obviously as the number of classes increases, this quickly becomes less desirable as a solution.

How about having an abstract class ThingBase, with subclasses MutableThing and ImmutableThing? ThingBase would contain all the data in a protected structure, providing public read-only properties for the fields and protected read-only property for its structure. It would also provide an overridable AsImmutable method which would return an ImmutableThing.
MutableThing would shadow the properties with read/write properties, and provide both a default constructor and a constructor that accepts a ThingBase.
Immutable thing would be a sealed class that overrides AsImmutable to simply return itself. It would also provide a constructor that accepts a ThingBase.

I dont like the idea of being able to change an object from a mutable to an immutable state, that kind of seems to defeat the point of design to me. When are you needing to do that? Only objects which represent VALUES should be immutable

You can use optional named arguments together with nullables to make an immutable setter with very little boilerplate. If you really do want to set a property to null then you may have some more troubles.
class Foo{
...
public Foo
Set
( double? majorBar=null
, double? minorBar=null
, int? cats=null
, double? dogs=null)
{
return new Foo
( majorBar ?? MajorBar
, minorBar ?? MinorBar
, cats ?? Cats
, dogs ?? Dogs);
}
public Foo
( double R
, double r
, int l
, double e
)
{
....
}
}
You would use it like so
var f = new Foo(10,20,30,40);
var g = f.Set(cat:99);