I have a "meter" class. One property of "meter" is another class called "production".
I need to access to a property of meter class (power rating) from production class by reference. The powerRating is not known at the instantiation of Meter.
How can I do that?
public class Meter
{
private int _powerRating = 0;
private Production _production;
public Meter()
{
_production = new Production();
}
}
Store a reference to the meter instance as a member in Production:
public class Production {
//The other members, properties etc...
private Meter m;
Production(Meter m) {
this.m = m;
}
}
And then in the Meter-class:
public class Meter
{
private int _powerRating = 0;
private Production _production;
public Meter()
{
_production = new Production(this);
}
}
Also note that you need to implement an accessor method/property so that the Production class can actually access the powerRating member of the Meter class.
I wouldn't reference the parent directly in the child objects. In my opinion the childs shouldn't know anything about the parents. This will limits the flexibility!
I would solve this with events/handlers.
public class Meter
{
private int _powerRating = 0;
private Production _production;
public Meter()
{
_production = new Production();
_production.OnRequestPowerRating += new Func<int>(delegate { return _powerRating; });
_production.DoSomething();
}
}
public class Production
{
protected int RequestPowerRating()
{
if (OnRequestPowerRating == null)
throw new Exception("OnRequestPowerRating handler is not assigned");
return OnRequestPowerRating();
}
public void DoSomething()
{
int powerRating = RequestPowerRating();
Debug.WriteLine("The parents powerrating is :" + powerRating);
}
public Func<int> OnRequestPowerRating;
}
In this case I solved it with the Func<> generic, but can be done with 'normal' functions.
This why the child(Production) is totally independent from it's parent(Meter).
But! If there are too many events/handlers or you just want to pass a parent object, i would solve it with an interface:
public interface IMeter
{
int PowerRating { get; }
}
public class Meter : IMeter
{
private int _powerRating = 0;
private Production _production;
public Meter()
{
_production = new Production(this);
_production.DoSomething();
}
public int PowerRating { get { return _powerRating; } }
}
public class Production
{
private IMeter _meter;
public Production(IMeter meter)
{
_meter = meter;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
Debug.WriteLine("The parents powerrating is :" + _meter.PowerRating);
}
}
This looks pretty much the same as the solution mentions, but the interface could be defined in another assembly and can be implemented by more than 1 class.
Regards,
Jeroen van Langen.
You would need to add a property to your Production class and set it to point back at its parent, this doesn't exist by default.
Why not change the constructor on Production to let you pass in a reference at construction time:
public class Meter
{
private int _powerRating = 0;
private Production _production;
public Meter()
{
_production = new Production(this);
}
}
In the Production constructor you can assign this to a private field or a property. Then Production will always have access to is parent.
You could maybe add a method to your Production object called 'SetPowerRating(int)' which sets a property in Production, and call this in your Meter object before using the property in the Production object?
I would give the parent an ID, and store the parentID in the child object, so that you can pull information about the parent as needed without creating a parent-owns-child/child-owns-parent loop.
something like this:
public int PowerRating
{
get { return base.PowerRating; } // if power inherits from meter...
}
Related
I have two constructors which feed values to readonly fields.
public class Sample
{
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
_intField = i;
}
public Sample(int theInt) => _intField = theInt;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
One constructor receives the values directly, and the other does some calculation and obtains the values, then sets the fields.
Now here's the catch:
I don't want to duplicate the
setting code. In this case, just one
field is set but of course there may
well be more than one.
To make the fields readonly, I need
to set them from the constructor, so
I can't "extract" the shared code to
a utility function.
I don't know how to call one
constructor from another.
Any ideas?
Like this:
public Sample(string str) : this(int.Parse(str)) { }
If what you want can't be achieved satisfactorily without having the initialization in its own method (e.g. because you want to do too much before the initialization code, or wrap it in a try-finally, or whatever) you can have any or all constructors pass the readonly variables by reference to an initialization routine, which will then be able to manipulate them at will.
public class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue) => intField = newValue;
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt) => setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
Before the body of the constructor, use either:
: base (parameters)
: this (parameters)
Example:
public class People: User
{
public People (int EmpID) : base (EmpID)
{
// Add more statements here.
}
}
I am improving upon supercat's answer. I guess the following can also be done:
class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty
{
get { return _intField; }
}
void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue)
{
//Do some stuff here based upon the necessary initialized variables.
intField = newValue;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString, bool? doStuff = true)
{
//Initialization of some necessary variables.
//==========================================
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
// ................
// .......................
//==========================================
if (!doStuff.HasValue || doStuff.Value == true)
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt): this(theInt, false) //"false" param to avoid setupStuff() being called two times
{
setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
}
Here is an example that calls another constructor, then checks on the property it has set.
public SomeClass(int i)
{
I = i;
}
public SomeClass(SomeOtherClass soc)
: this(soc.J)
{
if (I==0)
{
I = DoSomethingHere();
}
}
Yeah, you can call other method before of the call base or this!
public class MyException : Exception
{
public MyException(int number) : base(ConvertToString(number))
{
}
private static string ConvertToString(int number)
{
return number.toString()
}
}
Constructor chaining i.e you can use "Base" for Is a relationship and "This" you can use for same class, when you want call multiple Constructor in single call.
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass():this(10)
{
}
public BaseClass(int val)
{
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new BaseClass();
ReadLine();
}
}
When you inherit a class from a base class, you can invoke the base class constructor by instantiating the derived class
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
}
class der : sample
{
public int a;
public int b;
public der(int value1,int value2) : base(50)
{
a = value1;
b = value2;
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
der obj = new der(10,20);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.x);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.a);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.b);
}
}
Output of the sample program is
50 10 20
You can also use this keyword to invoke a constructor from another constructor
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
public sample(sample obj) : this(obj.x)
{
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
sample s = new sample(20);
sample ss = new sample(s);
System.Console.WriteLine(ss.x);
}
}
The output of this sample program is
20
Error handling and making your code reusable is key. I added string to int validation and it is possible to add other types if needed. Solving this problem with a more reusable solution could be this:
public class Sample
{
public Sample(object inputToInt)
{
_intField = objectToInt(inputToInt);
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
public static int objectToInt(object inputToInt)
{
switch (inputToInt)
{
case int inputInt:
return inputInt;
break;
case string inputString:
if (!int.TryParse(inputString, out int parsedInt))
{
throw new InvalidParameterException($"The input {inputString} could not be parsed to int");
}
return parsedInt;
default:
throw new InvalidParameterException($"Constructor do not support {inputToInt.GetType().Name}");
break;
}
}
Please, please, and pretty please do not try this at home, or work, or anywhere really.
This is a way solve to a very very specific problem, and I hope you will not have that.
I'm posting this since it is technically an answer, and another perspective to look at it.
I repeat, do not use it under any condition. Code is to run with LINQPad.
void Main()
{
(new A(1)).Dump();
(new B(2, -1)).Dump();
var b2 = new B(2, -1);
b2.Increment();
b2.Dump();
}
class A
{
public readonly int I = 0;
public A(int i)
{
I = i;
}
}
class B: A
{
public int J;
public B(int i, int j): base(i)
{
J = j;
}
public B(int i, bool wtf): base(i)
{
}
public void Increment()
{
int i = I + 1;
var t = typeof(B).BaseType;
var ctor = t.GetConstructors().First();
ctor.Invoke(this, new object[] { i });
}
}
Since constructor is a method, you can call it with reflection. Now you either think with portals, or visualize a picture of a can of worms. sorry about this.
In my case, I had a main constructor that used an OracleDataReader as an argument, but I wanted to use different query to create the instance:
I had this code:
public Subscriber(OracleDataReader contractReader)
{
this.contract = Convert.ToString(contractReader["contract"]);
this.customerGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerGroup"]);
this.subGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerSubGroup"]);
this.pricingPlan= Convert.ToString(contractReader["pricingPlan"]);
this.items = new Dictionary<string, Member>();
this.status = 0;
}
So I created the following constructor:
public Subscriber(string contract, string customerGroup) : this(getSubReader(contract, customerGroup))
{ }
and this method:
private static OracleDataReader getSubReader(string contract, string customerGroup)
{
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":contract"].Value = contract + "%";
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":customerGroup"].Value = customerGroup+ "%";
return cmdSubscriber.ExecuteReader();
}
notes: a statically defined cmdSubscriber is defined elsewhere in the code; My main constructor has been simplified for this illustration.
In case you need to run something before calling another constructor not after.
public class Sample
{
static int preprocess(string theIntAsString)
{
return preprocess(int.Parse(theIntAsString));
}
static int preprocess(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
return theIntNeedRounding/100;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntAsString)
}
public Sample(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntNeedRounding)
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
And ValueTuple can be very helpful if you need to set more than one field.
NOTE: most of the solutions above does not work for structs.
Unfortunately initializing struct fields in a method called by a constructor is not recognized by the compiler and will lead to 2 errors:
in the constructor: Field xxxx must be fully assigned...
in the method, if you have readonly fields: a read-only field cannot be assigned except in a constructor.
These can be really frustrating for example when you just need to do simple check to decide on which constructor to orient your call to.
Is there an access modifier, or combination thereof, to restrict access to an outer class only?
For the Position property of nested class PanelFragment below, I would like only the containing class ViewPagerPanels to be able to set it (via the setter, I realize this could be done through a constructor parameter also).
public class ParcelView : MXActivityView<ParcelVM>, ViewPager.IOnPageChangeListener, IFragmentToViewPagerEvent
{
private ViewPagerPanels _pagerPanels;
protected override void OnCreate(Bundle bundle)
{
base.OnCreate(bundle);
_pagerPanels = new ViewPagerPanels(5); // 5: magic number, put int constant
_pagerPanels[0] = new ViewPagerPanels.PanelFragment(typeof(ViewA));
// ...
}
private class ViewPagerPanels
{
public class PanelFragment
{
public Fragment Fragment { get; set; }
// ?? - access modifer for set
public int Position { get; private set; }
}
public readonly int PANEL_COUNT;
private PanelFragment[] _panels;
public ViewPagerPanels(int count)
{
PANEL_COUNT = count;
_panels = new PanelFragment[PANEL_COUNT];
}
public PanelFragment this[int i]
{
get
{
return _panels[i];
}
set
{
_panels[i] = value;
// !! - cannot access private property
_panels[i].Position = i;
}
}
}
}
No, it's not possible to do it directly. The most restrictive access modifier, private, already allows access from within the same class. Every other modifier further expands that access.
Every class, no matter if its nested, private or public, always has access to every single of its own declared members, with no chance of applyng restrictions to itself. The closest we can get is by using a readonly field (or a getter only property) that prevents the declaring class from modifying a variable outside the constructor. But for a read-write one, we're out of options.
There is a solution for this type of protection scenarios. But you should do the following changes;
1- Replace you concrete class with an interface or abstract class and expose this to outside world
2- Implement this interface with a concrete class
3- Control the creation of this class by a factory method
4- Set the property by casting the interface (or abstract class) to your private class type
Sample code changes
public interface IPanelFragment
{
Fragment Fragment { get; set; }
// ?? - access modifer for set
int Position { get; }
}
class PanelFragment : IPanelFragment
{
public Fragment Fragment { get; set; }
// ?? - access modifer for set
public int Position { get; set; }
}
private IPanelFragment[] _panels;
public IPanelFragment CreateFragment(Fragment fragment, int pos)
{
return new PanelFragment() { Fragment= fragment, Position = pos };
}
public IPanelFragment this[int i]
{
get
{
return _panels[i];
}
set
{
_panels[i] = value;
// !! - cannot access private property
((PanelFragment)_panels[i]).Position = i;
}
}
A possible workaround
public int Position { get; private set; }
public int InitPosition { set { Position = value; } }
or, depending on your philosophical perspective concerning getter-less Properties
public void InitPosition(int value) { Position = value; }
My brain is gonna to explode. :) So I would like to get help from you.
Please, think about my question like about just programmer puzzle. (Actually. perhaps it is very easy question for you, but not for me.)
It is needed to create array of objects. For example List where T is class. (I will describe Class T below). Also it is needed create “container” that will contain this array and some methods for work with this array. For example Add(), Remove(int IndexToRemove).
Class T must have field "Container", this way each elements of our array would be able to know where is it contained and has access its container's fields and methods. Notice, that in this case Class T should have type parameter. Indeed, it is not known beforehand which container's type is used.
Let us denote this class container as A and class element (class T) as AUnit.
Code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A a = new A();
a.Add();
a.Units[0].SomeField +=100;
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
class A
{
public List<AUnit> Units;
public A()//ctor
{
Units = new List<AUnit>();
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new AUnit(this));
}
}
class AUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public A Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public AUnit(A container)
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
}
}
Public fields should be protected or private of course, but let think about this later.
You can ask “why we create public A Container field in AUnit”? We create field public string Name{get;private set;} (actually property but nevermind). And also we would like to be able to change value of this field for example method [Class AUnit] public bool Rename(string newName)();. The main idea of this method is changing Name field only that case if no one element in array (public List Units; ) has the same name like newName. But to achieve this, Rename method has to have access to all names that is currently used. And that is why we need Container field.
Code of extended version AUnit
class AUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public A Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public AUnit(A container)
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
Boolean res = true;
foreach (AUnit unt in this.Container.Units)
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = false;
break;
}
}
if (res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return res;
}
}
Ok. If you still read it let's continue. Now we need to create Class B and class BUnit which will be very similar like Class A and Class Aunit. And finally the main question of this puzzle is HOW WE CAN DO IT? Of course, I can CopyPaste and bit modify A and AUnit and create this code.
class B
{
public List<BUnit> Units; //Only Type Changing
public B()//ctor Name changing...
{
Units = new List<BUnit>();//Only Type Changing
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new BUnit(this));//Only Type Changing
}
}
class BUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public B Container;//Only Type Changing
public string Name { get; private set; }
public A a; //NEW FIELD IS ADDED (just one)
public BUnit(B container) //Ctor Name and arguments type changing
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
this.a=new A(); //New ROW (just one)
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
Boolean res = true;
foreach (BUnit unt in this.Container.Units) //Only Type Changing
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = false;
break;
}
}
if (res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return res;
}
}
And I can to use this classes this way.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
B b = new B();
b.Add();
b.Units[0].a.Add();
b.Units[0].a.Units[0].SomeField += 100;
bool res= b.Units[0].a.Units[0].Rename("1");
res = b.Units[0].a.Units[0].Rename("1");
Console.ReadKey();
}
This construction is can be used to create “non-homogeneous trees”.
Help, I need somebody help, just no anybody…. [The Beatles]
I created B and BUnit using CopyPaste.
But how it can be done using “macro-definitions” or “Generic”, inherit or anything else in elegant style? (C# language)
I think that there is no reason to describe all my unsuccessful attempts and subquestions. Already topic is too long. : )
Thanks a lot if you still read it and understand what I would like to ask.
You need to implement a base type, lets call it UnitBase, with all common functionality. I'd structure your code the following way:
Create an interface for your container, this way you can change implementation to more performant solutions without modifying the elements you will be adding to the container.
public interface IContainer
{
Q Add<Q>() where Q : UnitBase, new();
IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units { get; }
}
Following the idea stated in 1, why not make the search logic belong to the container? It makes much more sense, as it will mostly depend on how the container is implemented:
public interface IContainer
{
Q Add<Q>() where Q : UnitBase, new();
IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units { get; }
bool Contains(string name);
}
A specific implementation of IContainer could be the following:
public class Container : IContainer
{
public Container()
{
list = new List<UnitBase>();
}
private List<UnitBase> list;
public Q Add<Q>() where Q: UnitBase, new()
{
var newItem = Activator.CreateInstance<Q>();
newItem.SetContainer(this);
list.Add(newItem);
return newItem;
}
public IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units => list.Select(i => i);
public bool Contains(string name) =>
Units.Any(unit => unit.Name == name);
}
Create a base class for your AUnit and BUnit types condensing all common functionality:
public abstract class UnitBase
{
protected UnitBase()
{
}
public IContainer Container { get; private set; }
public int SomeField;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public void SetContainer(IContainer container)
{
Container = container;
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
if (Container.Contains(newName))
return false;
this.Name = newName; //No need to use String.Copy
return true;
}
}
Implement your concrete types:
public class BUnit : UnitBase
{
public int SpecificBProperty { get; private set; }
public BUnit()
{
}
}
Shortcomings of this approach? Well, the container must be of type <UnitBase>, I've removed the generic type because it really wasn't doing much in this particular case as it would be invariant in the generic type.
Also, keep in mind that nothing in the type system avoids the following:
myContainer.Add<BUnit>();
myContainer.Add<AUnit>();
If having two different types in the same container is not an option then this whole set up kind of crumbles down. This issue was present in the previous solution too so its not something new, I simply forgot to point it out.
InBetween , I am very thankful to you for your advices. Actually I can't say that I understood your answer in full, but using your ideas I have done what I want.
Looks like my variant works well. However I would like to hear your (and everyone) opinions about code described below. The main goal of this structure is creating non-homogeneous trees. So could you estimate it from this side.
First of all. We need to create interfaces for both classes. We describe there all "cross-used" functions.
public interface IUnit<T>
{
string Name { get;}
void SetContainer(T t);
bool Rename(String newName);
}
public interface IContainer
{
bool IsNameBusy(String newName);
int Count { get; }
}
Next. Create Base for Unit Classes for future inheritance. We will use in this inheritors methods from Container Base so we need generic properties and IUnit interface.
class UnitBase<T> : IUnit<T> where T : IContainer
Unfortunately I don't know yet how to solve the problem with Constructor parameters. That is why I use method
SetContainer(T container).
Code:UnitBase
class UnitBase<T> : IUnit<T> where T : IContainer
{
protected T Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public UnitBase()
{
this.Name = "Default";
}
public void SetContainer(T container)
{
this.Container = container;
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
bool res = Container.IsNameBusy(newName);
if (!res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return !res;
}
}
Next. Create ContainerBase
ContainerBase should:
1) has IContainer interface.
2)has information about what it will contain:
... where U : IUnit<C>, new()
3)and .... has information about what itself is. This information we need to pass as parameter to SetContainer() method.
Code ContainerBase:
class ContainerBase<U, C> : IContainer //U - Unit Class. C-Container Class
where U : IUnit<C>, new()
where C : ContainerBase<U, C>
{
protected List<U> Units;
public U this[int index] { get { return Units[index]; } }
public ContainerBase()//ctor
{
this.Units = new List<U>();
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new U());
this.Units.Last().SetContainer(((C)this));//may be a bit strange but actualy this will have the same type as <C>
}
public bool IsNameBusy(String newName)
{
bool res = false;
foreach (var unt in this.Units)
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = true;
break;
}
}
return res;
}
public int Count { get { return this.Units.Count; } }
}
Cast ((TContainer)(this)) may be is a bit strange. But using ContainerBase we always should use NewInheritorContainer. So this cast is just do nothing…looks like...
Finally. This classes can be used like in this example.
class SheetContainer : ContainerBase<SheetUnit,SheetContainer> {public SheetContainer(){}}
class SheetUnit : UnitBase<SheetContainer>
{
public CellContainer Cells;
public PictureContainer Pictures;
public SheetUnit()
{
this.Cells = new CellContainer();
this.Pictures = new PictureContainer();
}
}
class CellContainer : ContainerBase<CellUnit, CellContainer> { public CellContainer() { } }
class CellUnit : UnitBase<CellContainer>
{
public string ValuePr;//Private Field
private const string ValuePrDefault = "Default";
public string Value//Property for Value
{
//All below are Just For Example.
get
{
return this.ValuePr;
}
set
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
{
this.ValuePr = ValuePrDefault;
}
else
{
this.ValuePr = String.Copy(value);
}
}
}
public CellUnit()
{
this.ValuePr = ValuePrDefault;
}
}
class PictureContainer : ContainerBase<PictureUnit, PictureContainer> { public PictureContainer() { } }
class PictureUnit : UnitBase<PictureContainer>
{
public int[,] Pixels{get;private set;}
public PictureUnit()
{
this.Pixels=new int[,]{{10,20,30},{11,12,13}};
}
public int GetSizeX()
{
return this.Pixels.GetLength(1);
}
public int GetSizeY()
{
return this.Pixels.GetLength(0);
}
public bool LoadFromFile(string path)
{
return false;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SheetContainer Sheets = new SheetContainer();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets[0].Pictures.Add();
Sheets[1].Cells.Add();
Sheets[2].Pictures.Add();
Sheets[2].Cells.Add();
Sheets[2].Cells[0].Value = "FirstTest";
bool res= Sheets[0].Rename("First");//res=true
res=Sheets[2].Rename("First");//res =false
int res2 = Sheets.Count;
res2 = Sheets[2].Pictures[0].Pixels[1, 2];//13
res2 = Sheets[2].Pictures.Count;//1
res2 = Sheets[1].Pictures.Count;//0
res2 = Sheets[0].Pictures[0].GetSizeX();//3
Console.ReadKey();
}
Looks like it works like I want. But I didn’t test it full.
Let me say Thank you again, InBetween.
I want to inherit from NHibernate's SqlClientBatchingBatcher class exactly like this (code taken from TooManyRowsAffectedException with encrypted triggers):
public class NonBatchingBatcherWithoutVerification : SqlClientBatchingBatcher
{
public NonBatchingBatcherWithoutVerification(ConnectionManager connectionManager, IInterceptor interceptor) : base(connectionManager, interceptor)
{}
protected override void DoExecuteBatch(IDbCommand ps)
{
log.DebugFormat("Executing batch");
CheckReaders();
Prepare(currentBatch.BatchCommand);
if (Factory.Settings.SqlStatementLogger.IsDebugEnabled)
{
Factory.Settings.SqlStatementLogger.LogBatchCommand(currentBatchCommandsLog.ToString());
currentBatchCommandsLog = new StringBuilder().AppendLine("Batch commands:");
}
int rowsAffected = currentBatch.ExecuteNonQuery();
// Removed the following line
//Expectations.VerifyOutcomeBatched(totalExpectedRowsAffected, rowsAffected);
currentBatch.Dispose();
totalExpectedRowsAffected = 0;
currentBatch = new SqlClientSqlCommandSet();
}
}
Just notice some of the members accessed in the method here (like currentBatch or totalExpectedRowsAffected).
Well, it turns out these members are actually private in the superclass of the current NHibernate 3.3 source. So how do I effectively inherit the class without copying the whole thing? This is the unmodified NHibernate code of the class by the way:
public class SqlClientBatchingBatcher : AbstractBatcher
{
private int _batchSize;
private int _totalExpectedRowsAffected;
private SqlClientSqlCommandSet _currentBatch;
private StringBuilder _currentBatchCommandsLog;
private readonly int _defaultTimeout;
public SqlClientBatchingBatcher(ConnectionManager connectionManager, IInterceptor interceptor)
: base(connectionManager, interceptor)
{
_batchSize = Factory.Settings.AdoBatchSize;
_defaultTimeout = PropertiesHelper.GetInt32(Cfg.Environment.CommandTimeout, Cfg.Environment.Properties, -1);
_currentBatch = CreateConfiguredBatch();
//we always create this, because we need to deal with a scenario in which
//the user change the logging configuration at runtime. Trying to put this
//behind an if(log.IsDebugEnabled) will cause a null reference exception
//at that point.
_currentBatchCommandsLog = new StringBuilder().AppendLine("Batch commands:");
}
public override int BatchSize
{
get { return _batchSize; }
set { _batchSize = value; }
}
protected override int CountOfStatementsInCurrentBatch
{
get { return _currentBatch.CountOfCommands; }
}
public override void AddToBatch(IExpectation expectation)
{
_totalExpectedRowsAffected += expectation.ExpectedRowCount;
IDbCommand batchUpdate = CurrentCommand;
Driver.AdjustCommand(batchUpdate);
string lineWithParameters = null;
var sqlStatementLogger = Factory.Settings.SqlStatementLogger;
if (sqlStatementLogger.IsDebugEnabled || Log.IsDebugEnabled)
{
lineWithParameters = sqlStatementLogger.GetCommandLineWithParameters(batchUpdate);
var formatStyle = sqlStatementLogger.DetermineActualStyle(FormatStyle.Basic);
lineWithParameters = formatStyle.Formatter.Format(lineWithParameters);
_currentBatchCommandsLog.Append("command ")
.Append(_currentBatch.CountOfCommands)
.Append(":")
.AppendLine(lineWithParameters);
}
if (Log.IsDebugEnabled)
{
Log.Debug("Adding to batch:" + lineWithParameters);
}
_currentBatch.Append((System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand) batchUpdate);
if (_currentBatch.CountOfCommands >= _batchSize)
{
ExecuteBatchWithTiming(batchUpdate);
}
}
protected override void DoExecuteBatch(IDbCommand ps)
{
Log.DebugFormat("Executing batch");
CheckReaders();
Prepare(_currentBatch.BatchCommand);
if (Factory.Settings.SqlStatementLogger.IsDebugEnabled)
{
Factory.Settings.SqlStatementLogger.LogBatchCommand(_currentBatchCommandsLog.ToString());
_currentBatchCommandsLog = new StringBuilder().AppendLine("Batch commands:");
}
int rowsAffected;
try
{
rowsAffected = _currentBatch.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
catch (DbException e)
{
throw ADOExceptionHelper.Convert(Factory.SQLExceptionConverter, e, "could not execute batch command.");
}
Expectations.VerifyOutcomeBatched(_totalExpectedRowsAffected, rowsAffected);
_currentBatch.Dispose();
_totalExpectedRowsAffected = 0;
_currentBatch = CreateConfiguredBatch();
}
private SqlClientSqlCommandSet CreateConfiguredBatch()
{
var result = new SqlClientSqlCommandSet();
if (_defaultTimeout > 0)
{
try
{
result.CommandTimeout = _defaultTimeout;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (Log.IsWarnEnabled)
{
Log.Warn(e.ToString());
}
}
}
return result;
}
}
Did I overlook something? Seems to a rather bad approach to copy the whole thing just to override all access to any private members. I just want to override one method!
There is only one way to legally access private members of your base class: put the derived class inside the base class:
class Base
{
private int x;
private class Derived : Base
{
private void M()
{
Console.WriteLine(this.x); // legal!
}
}
}
Of course, if you could put the class inside the base class then you could also rewrite the base class so that the members were protected.
That the original author made the members private is a hint to you that the class was not designed for you to muck around with that data.
If they're set as private, there's really nothing (short of using Reflection, which is ugly and certainly not always safe) that you can do.
Private members of a superclass cannot be accessed, bcause they are private. Encapsulation in OOP is there to prohibit this direct access and so ensure that objects function properly.
There might be properties to access the private members, These are the ones you can use to read from/write to private members. The properties will ensure that no harm to the object will be done.
You can access private fields, properties and methods of a parent class using reflection (for example, accessing a field as described here: Reflecting a private field from a base class)
This is not safe, however as the idea of private is that the library implementation could change and those private methods, fields and properties could change or disappear. If they change the implementation, an update could break your code.
That said, I've done it a few times myself. You just need to weigh the risk.
I've created a class with properties that have default values. At some point in the object's lifetime, I'd like to "reset" the object's properties back to what they were when the object was instantiated. For example, let's say this was the class:
public class Truck {
public string Name = "Super Truck";
public int Tires = 4;
public Truck() { }
public void ResetTruck() {
// Do something here to "reset" the object
}
}
Then at some point, after the Name and Tires properties have been changed, the ResetTruck() method could be called and the properties would be reset back to "Super Truck" and 4, respectively.
What's the best way to reset the properties back to their initial hard-coded defaults?
You can have the initialization in a method instead of inlining with the declaration. Then have the constructor and reset method call the initialization method:
public class Truck {
public string Name;
public int Tires;
public Truck() {
Init();
}
public void ResetTruck() {
Init();
}
private void Init() {
Name = "Super Truck";
Tires = 4;
}
}
Another way is not to have a reset method at all. Just create a new instance.
Reflection is your friend. You could create a helper method to use Activator.CreateInstance() to set the default value of Value types and 'null' for reference types, but why bother when setting null on a PropertyInfo's SetValue will do the same.
Type type = this.GetType();
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
for (int i = 0; i < properties.Length; ++i)
properties[i].SetValue(this, null); //trick that actually defaults value types too.
To extend this for your purpose, have private members:
//key - property name, value - what you want to assign
Dictionary<string, object> _propertyValues= new Dictionary<string, object>();
List<string> _ignorePropertiesToReset = new List<string>(){"foo", "bar"};
Set the values in your constructor:
public Truck() {
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
//exclude properties you don't want to reset, put the rest in the dictionary
for (int i = 0; i < properties.Length; ++i){
if (!_ignorePropertiesToReset.Contains(properties[i].Name))
_propertyValues.Add(properties[i].Name, properties[i].GetValue(this));
}
}
Reset them later:
public void Reset() {
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
for (int i = 0; i < properties.Length; ++i){
//if dictionary has property name, use it to set the property
properties[i].SetValue(this, _propertyValues.ContainsKey(properties[i].Name) ? _propertyValues[properties[i].Name] : null);
}
}
Unless creating the object is really expensive (and Reset isn't for some reason). I see no reason to implement a special reset method. Why don't you just create a new instance with a usable default state.
What is the purpose of reusing the instance?
If you did your initialization in a Reset method you can be good to go:
public class Truck {
public string Name;
public int Tires;
public Truck() {
ResetTruck();
}
public void ResetTruck() {
Name = "Super Truck";
Tires = 4;
}
}
Focusing of separation of concerns (like Brian mentioned in the comments), another alternative would be to add a TruckProperties type (you could even add your default values to its constructor):
public class TruckProperties
{
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
public int Tires
{
get;
set;
}
public TruckProperties()
{
this.Name = "Super Truck";
this.Tires = 4;
}
public TruckProperties(string name, int tires)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Tires = tires;
}
}
Inside your Truck class, all you would do is manage an instance of the TruckProperties type, and let it do its reset.
public class Truck
{
private TruckProperties properties = new TruckProperties();
public Truck()
{
}
public string Name
{
get
{
return this.properties.Name;
}
set
{
this.properties.Name = value;
}
}
public int Tires
{
get
{
return this.properties.Tires;
}
set
{
this.properties.Tires = value;
}
}
public void ResetTruck()
{
this.properties = new TruckProperties();
}
}
This certainly may be a lot of (unwanted) overhead for such a simple class, but in a bigger/more complex project it could be advantageous.
That's the thing about "best" practices... a lot of times, there's no silver bullet, but only recommendations you must take with skepticism and your best judgement as to what applies to you in a particular case.
I solved a similar problem with reflection. You can use source.GetType().GetProperties() to get a list of all properties which belong to the object.
Although, this is not always a complete solution. If your object implements several interfaces, you will also get all those properties with your reflection call.
So I wrote this simple function which gives us more control of which properties we are interested in resetting.
public static void ClearProperties(object source, List<Type> InterfaceList = null, Type SearchType = null)
{
// Set Interfaces[] array size accordingly. (Will be size of our passed InterfaceList, or 1 if InterfaceList is not passed.)
Type[] Interfaces = new Type[InterfaceList == null ? 1 : InterfaceList.Count];
// If our InterfaceList was not set, get all public properties.
if (InterfaceList == null)
Interfaces[0] = source.GetType();
else // Otherwise, get only the public properties from our passed InterfaceList
for (int i = 0; i < InterfaceList.Count; i++)
Interfaces[i] = source.GetType().GetInterface(InterfaceList[i].Name);
IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> propertyList = Enumerable.Empty<PropertyInfo>();
foreach (Type face in Interfaces)
{
if (face != null)
{
// If our SearchType is null, just get all properties that are not already empty
if (SearchType == null)
propertyList = face.GetProperties().Where(prop => prop != null);
else // Otherwise, get all properties that match our SearchType
propertyList = face.GetProperties().Where(prop => prop.PropertyType == SearchType);
// Reset each property
foreach (var property in propertyList)
{
if (property.CanRead && property.CanWrite)
property.SetValue(source, null, new object[] { });
}
}
else
{
// Throw an error or a warning, depends how strict you want to be I guess.
Debug.Log("Warning: Passed interface does not belong to object.");
//throw new Exception("Warning: Passed interface does not belong to object.");
}
}
}
And it's use:
// Clears all properties in object
ClearProperties(Obj);
// Clears all properties in object from MyInterface1 & MyInterface2
ClearProperties(Obj, new List<Type>(){ typeof(MyInterface1), typeof(MyInterface2)});
// Clears all integer properties in object from MyInterface1 & MyInterface2
ClearProperties(Obj, new List<Type>(){ typeof(MyInterface1), typeof(MyInterface2)}, typeof(int));
// Clears all integer properties in object
ClearProperties(Obj,null,typeof(int));
You'd probably need to save the values off in private fields, so that they can be restored later. Maybe something like this:
public class Truck
{
private static const string defaultName = "Super Truck";
private static const int defaultTires = 4;
// Use properties for public members (not public fields)
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Tires { get; set; }
public Truck()
{
Name = defaultName;
Tires = defaultTires;
}
public void ResetTruck()
{
Name = defaultName;
Tires = defaultTires;
}
}
You're essentially looking for the State Design Pattern
If you want a specific past "state" of your object you can create a particular save point to return every time you want. This also let you have a diferent state to backup for everey instance that you create. If you class has many properties who are in constant change, this could be your solution.
public class Truck
{
private string _Name = "Super truck";
private int _Tires = 4;
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
public int Tires
{
get { return _Tires; }
set { _Tires = value; }
}
private Truck SavePoint;
public static Truck CreateWithSavePoint(string Name, int Tires)
{
Truck obj = new Truck();
obj.Name = Name;
obj.Tires = Tires;
obj.Save();
return obj;
}
public Truck() { }
public void Save()
{
SavePoint = (Truck)this.MemberwiseClone();
}
public void ResetTruck()
{
Type type = this.GetType();
PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties();
for (int i = 0; i < properties.Count(); ++i)
properties[i].SetValue(this, properties[i].GetValue(SavePoint));
}
}
If you aren't using a Code Generator or a Designer that would conflict, another option is to go through C#'s TypeDescriptor stuff, which is similar to Reflection, but meant to add more meta information to a class than Reflection could.
using System.ComponentModel;
public class Truck {
// You can use the DefaultValue Attribute for simple primitive properites
[DefaultValue("Super Truck")]
public string Name { get; set; } = "Super Truck";
// You can use a Reset[PropertyName]() method for more complex properties
public int Tires { get; set; } = 4;
public void ResetTires() => Tires = 4;
public Truck() { }
public void ResetTruck() {
// Iterates through each property and tries to reset it
foreach (PropertyDescriptor prop in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(GetType())) {
if (prop.CanResetValue(this)) prop.ResetValue(this);
}
}
}
Note that ResetValue will also reset to a shadowed property if one exists. The priority of which option is selected is explained in the docs:
This method determines the value to reset the property to in the following order of precedence:
There is a shadowed property for this property.
There is a DefaultValueAttribute for this property.
There is a "ResetMyProperty" method that you have implemented, where "MyProperty" is the name of the property you pass to it.
You may represent an object state as a struct or record struct and then set the state to the default value in the Reset method like this:
public class Truck {
record struct State(string Name, int Tires);
private static readonly State _defaultState = new("Super Truck", 4);
private State _state = _defaultState;
public string Name => _state.Name;
public int Tires => _state.Tires;
public Truck() {}
public void ResetTruck() => _state = _defaultState;
}
It is probably the fastest way as well.
Also, a record struct will give you the trivial implementations of the ToString, Equals, GetHashCode.