We Keep Coding

Creating a Many to One Class Relationship

I have a set of class objects that I can not touch. All of them have an ID property that I would like to access in other functions in a generic way.
For simplicities sake here is an example of my problem.
class Example1 {
int ID { get; set;}
}
class Example2 {
int ID { get; set; }
}
I am not able to edit either of these two classes or the library they are in.
I also have a function that expects an ID that can come from either Example1 or Example2. In order to handle this I have come up with a number of solutions but am curious what the proper way to solve this would be.
I could:
Use dynamic classes to access the various classes ID's.
Use reflection to pull out an ID parameter from any given type.
Use an odd inheritance by creating a new class so that Example1ViewModel : Example1, IIdentifiableObject and then expect IIdentifiableObject in my function and implement a copy constructor in Example1ViewModel to handle collecting the data
Write a separate filter function that can extract out the relevant parts from either class and provide the results.
None of these solutions seem particularly good to me. How should I be handling a many to one relationship like this in code and are there tools that C# provides to handle this?

possible solution using extension methods for the classes
public static class MyExtensions
{
public static int GetId(this Example1 ex)
{
return ex.Id;
}
public static int GetId(this Example2 ex)
{
return ex.Id;
}
}

You can add a static method using reflection:
public static int GetId(object obj)
{
Type type = obj.GetType();
return Convert.ToInt32(type.GetProperty("ID").GetValue(obj, null));
}
Then you can invoke it with any object to get the id property value.

Here is the solution that we ended up using and why.
We are using an inheritence structure that that takes the following two base classes:
FooExample
BarExample
and wraps them in the following
IExample
FooExampleModel : IExample
BarExampleModel : IExample
Both FooExampleModel and BarExampleModel have constructors which accept the class they are wrapping.
The importance of this is that it allows us to create methods accepting IExample instances without having to manipulate data beforehand. Additionally, unlike using dynamic types or reflection this solution provides us with compile time error checking.
Unfortunately using extension methods does not work. While it allows us to call the same method on two different object types like we wanted it does not allow those objects to be passed as Generic types to a seperate function.
The result of all of this is that this is now possible:
var foos = new List<FooExample>(); //Pretend there is data here
var bars = new List<BarExample>();
var examples = foos.Select((foo) => (IExample)new FooExampleModel(foo))
.Concat(bars.Select((bar) => (IExample)new BarExampleModel(bar)))
.ToList(); // Force evaluation before function call
DoSomethingOnIExamples(examples);
Besides that slightly gross LINQ query this appears to be the best way to accomplish this (DoSomethingOnIExamples(...) is a function accepting an IEnumerable<IExample> argument). Obviously this solution gets less nice as more types are added to this mix.

Factory pattern with a class that can has different class sub types

I have data from multiple organisations (police, fire, office) that need output in different formats.
To achieve this, I defined the following (this is a little simplified):
Transaction class -
"Success" indicator - Boolean.
"Type of department"- String or Enum.
A class which can be of any type - Police, Fire or Office (My question is on this as you will see).
A GenerateOutput() method - to handle generation of file formats.
Police class
Age - String
VehicleNumber - Integer
Supervisor - String
Fire class
Name - String
FireEngineNumber - Integer
County - Enum
WorkTimings - Enum
Office Class
Age - String
DeskNumber - Integer
Department - String
PayScale - Enum
IsManagement - Bool
As you can see, the Police, Fire and Office classes dont share anything in common and are primarily intended as data carrying entities. I intend to use a Factory to return an appropriate generic (not a C# generic) Transaction object with the data (Transaction object with Police, Fire or Office data within it) and then pass the returned object to a Strategy pattern which determines the file format (CSV, Excel, or XML; specified in a configuration file) each one needs.
My problem is in the definition of the Transaction object.
What type does the class in "3." of the Transaction class need to be? The data for each org differs, there are no common members, I am unable to define a common class for all.
Is the overall design appropriate? What other designs should I consider?
Based on Peter's comments below:
I think using generics might work, I ran into a problem though. I would like to use a factory to return the object requested, using GetTransactionObject, as below. What should be the return type of GetTransactionObject to accomodate this.
class TransactionFactory
{
Dictionary<string, Type> typeClassLookup;
public TransactionFactory()
{
typeClassLookup = new Dictionary<string, Type>();
typeClassLookup.Add("Police", typeof(PoliceData));
typeClassLookup.Add("Fire", typeof(FireData));
}
Transaction<????> GetTransactionObject(string org)
{
if( typeClassLookup.TryGetValue(org, out typeValue))
{
switch (typeValue.ToString())
{
case "policeData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<PoliceData>() { Data = new PoliceData(), params = null};
case "FireData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<FireData>() {Data = new FireData(), params = null};
}
}
return transactionObject;

If the types really have nothing in common, then you need no explicit base class. System.Object suffices, just as with many other generic types (i.e. any generic type lacking a constraint).
In other words, you could declare as:
class Transaction<T>
{
public bool Success { get; private set; }
public T Entity { get; private set; }
public Transaction(bool success, T entity)
{
Success = success;
Entity = entity;
}
public void GenerateOutput() { /* something goes here */ }
}
Personally, I would avoid adding a "department type" member. After all, that's implicit from the type parameter T. But you could add that easily to the above if you want.
If and when you find that the types do have something in common, such that your Transaction<T> type needs to do more than simply hold onto an instance of one of those types (which is about all it can do without a constraint), then you will be able to put that commonality into an interface or base class (depending on the specific need), and specify that in a constraint for the Transaction<T> class.
Note that it's not clear what you mean for the GenerateOutput() to do, or how it should work. But assuming that you want output that is specific for each Entity value, it seems to me that that is your "something in common". I.e., it's not the Transaction<T> class at all that needs to implement that method, but rather each entity type. In that case, you have something like this:
interface IDepartmentEntity
{
void GenerateOutput();
}
class Office : IDepartmentEntity
{
public void GenerateOutput() { /* department-specific logic here */ }
}
// etc.
Then you can declare:
class Transaction<T> where T : IDepartmentEntity
{
public bool Success { get; private set; }
public T Entity { get; private set; }
public Transaction(bool success, T entity)
{
Success = success;
Entity = entity;
}
public void GenerateOutput() { Entity.GenerateOutput(); }
}
EDIT:
Per Prasant's follow-up edit, with a request for advice on the GetTransactionObject()…
The right way to do this depends on the caller and the context, a detail not provided in the question. IMHO, the best scenario is where the caller is aware of the type. This allows the full power of generics to be used.
For example:
class TransactionFactory
{
public Transaction<T> GetTransactionObject<T>()
where T : IDepartmentEntity, new()
{
return new Transaction<T>()
{
Data = new T(),
params = null
}
}
}
Then you call like this:
Transaction<FireData> transaction = factory.GetTransactionObject<FireData>();
The caller, of course already knowing the type it is creating, then can fill in the appropriate properties of the transaction.Data object.
If that approach is not possible, then you will need for Transaction<T> itself to have a base class, or implement an interface. Note that in my original example, the IDepartmentEntity interface has only one method, and it's the same as the GenerateOutput() method in the Transaction class.
So maybe, that interface is really about generating output instead of being a data entity. Call it, instead of IDepartmentEntity, something like IOutputGenerator.
In that case, you might have something like this:
class Transaction<T> : IOutputGenerator
{
// all as before
}
class TransactionFactory
{
public IOutputGenerator GetTransactionObject(string org)
{
if( typeClassLookup.TryGetValue(org, out typeValue))
{
switch (typeValue.ToString())
{
case "policeData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<PoliceData>() { Data = new PoliceData(), params = null};
case "FireData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<FireData>() {Data = new FireData(), params = null};
}
}
return transactionObject;
}
}
This is an inferior solution, as it means the caller can only directly access the IOutputGenerator functionality. Anything else requires doing some type-checking and special-case code, something that really ought to be avoided whenever possible.
Note: if the Transaction type has other members which, like the GenerateOutput() method, are independent of the contained type T here, and which would be useful to callers who don't know T, then a possible variation of the above is to not reuse the interface used for the department-specific data types, but instead declare a base class for Transaction<T>, named of course Transaction, containing all those members not related to T. Then the return value can be Transaction.

What type does the class in "3." of the Transaction class need to be?
To decouple your department classes from the various export types, I recommend you make the department classes implement a common interface. Something like this:
public interface Exportable {
// return a list of attribute names, values, and types to export
IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> GetAttributes();
}
For example:
public class Police : Exportable {
public IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> GetAttributes() {
// return list size 3 - attribute info for Age, VehicleNumber, Supervisor
}
}
Is the overall design appropriate? What other designs should I consider?
The Transaction class design doesn't seem well suited for this problem.
Consider an Export class with a method for each export type, each method which receives the attributes returned from the Exportable interface method. Basic outline:
public static class Export {
public static boolean CSV(IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> attributes) {
// export attributes to CSV, return whether succeeded
}
public static boolean Excel(IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> attributes) {
// export attributes to Excel, return whether succeeded
}
// same thing for XML
}

Effects of returning a self reference from an instance method in C#

Let's say I have an interface called IConvertableModel and it helps me to convert some MVC models to/from DTO objects as shown below:
public class DisplayEditModel : IConvertableModel<Display>
{
[HiddenInput(DisplayValue = false)]
public int ObjectId { get; set; }
[StringLength(255)]
public string Description { get; set; }
public Display ToDto()
{
return new Display
{
Description = Description,
ObjectId = ObjectId,
};
}
public void SetFromDto(Display dto)
{
Description = dto.Description;
ObjectId = dto.ObjectId;
}
}
But there is one problem with this approach and that is it doesn't allow me do this :
var dto = _dtoRepository.GetFirstDto();
return new DisplayEditModel().SetFromDto(dto);
Instead I should do the following:
var dto = _dtoRepository.GetFirstDto();
var model = new DisplayEditModel();
model.SetFromDto(dto);
return model;
and this is adding extra two lines of code and little bit complexity in the long run.
What I am thinking is to convert SetFromDto method to something like this:
public DisplayEditModel SetFromDto(Display dto)
{
Description = dto.Description;
ObjectId = dto.ObjectId;
return this;
}
I think the benefit of this code is obvious but I also like to learn whether this harms code readability and leads to unexpected results for developers in the long run and if you think anything else, what would you recommend.
Note: Because of the interfaces reasons, I am not thinking to implement a constructor method.

A few thoughts, to begin with:
Adding lines of code is not the same as adding complexity. Having three statements, where each does a simple operation, is not necessarily harder to maintain or understand than a single statement with three operations inside of it.
When a method that begins with Set..., programmers will automatically assume that some stateful values of the target object are going to be changed by this method. It is rare for Set methods to have a return value. Property setters in C# actually "return" the original value passed into them, so you can chain setters:
int i = foo.A = 2;
So the precedent is generally against returning "this" from a set method specifically.
Chaining in general is most useful/desired when you're expecting several operations to be performed, one after the other. For example, C# provides nice initialization syntax so you can "chain" a bunch of different property setters on the same object:
var foo = new Foo { A = 1, B = 2 };
You can see how chaining is fulfilling the need to perform similar, grouped, repetitive operations that typically get performed all together. That is not the problem that you are trying to solve.
If your main gripe is that you don't like having three lines of code, why not just use a helper whose name indicates what you're trying to do?
TModel MapToModel<TModel, TDto>(TDto dto, TModel model)
where TModel : IConvertableModel<TDto>
{
model.SetFromDto(dto);
return model;
}
// usage:
var dto = _dtoRepository.GetFirstDto();
return MapToModel(dto, new DisplayEditModel());
... or even:
TModel CreateModel<TModel, TDto>(TDto dto)
where TModel : IConvertableModel<TDto>, new()
{
var model = new TModel();
return MapToModel(dto, model);
}
// usage:
var dto = _dtoRepository.GetFirstDto();
return CreateModel<DisplayEditModel>(dto);
This is simple, readable, and feasible, whereas the approach you're suggesting would break the IConvertableModel<Display> interface:
public interface IConvertableModel<TDto>
{
public TDto ToDto();
public ??? SetFromDto(TDto dto);
}
What would SetFromDto return? You would have to define another generic type on IConvertableModel.
public interface IConvertableModel<TDto, TModel> {
public TDto ToDto();
public TModel SetFromDto(TDto dto);
}
But this wouldn't really indicate that the SetFromDto method is necessarily returning itself, because it allows for a class that is not a TModel to implement IConvertableModel to convert between two other types.
Now, you could go out of your way to push the generics even farther:
public interface IConvertableModel<TDto, TModel>
where TModel : IConvertableModel<TDto, TModel>
{...}
But this still allows for some fudging, and the interface cannot guarantee that you are really returning "this" object. All in all, I'm not a big fan of that approach.

Rather than having DisplayEditModel have a get/set method for a Display object to get/set the values, just use a property that doesn't actually have a separate backing store:
public Display Display
{
get
{
return new Display
{
Description = Description,
ObjectId = ObjectId,
};
}
set
{
Description = value.Description;
ObjectId = value.ObjectId;
}
}
Now you can use an object initializer with this property when creating a model:
return new DisplayEditModel() { Display = dto };

This is a very javascript way of approaching this problem, though it has it's benefits. In the context of C#, it is a little bit strange though libraries such as LINQ do this to allow chaining together function calls.
My only worry about this, is that this has to be a class that does this consistently. Implementing a chaining function return pattern is not really a convenience as much as it is a design choice. The rule to follow in this case, would be to return this every time you mutate the object.
Chaining also may not be worth it performance wise. Something that can be done by wrapping all those operations into a single function is much faster. For instance:
MyVector.setX(1).SetY(1).SetZ(1).SetW(0)
is a lot slower than simply
MyVector.set(1, 1, 1, 0)
because now you are now doing excessive stack operations to do something fairly simple. It only becomes worth it on very large operations that take up the bulk of the computing time and make sense to chain together. For this reason, LINQ allows you to chain things together.
I wouldn't say that it necessary "harms" or is dangerous. We are in the world of a managed language, so we don't have direct access to that memory location (unlike C/C++). So I would just call it a design choice which can be fairly powerful in some cases and not so much in others.

As noted, chainable methods work fine but are not as common in C# as in some other languages. If the extra lines of code only happen in one place, I'd just leave it alone. If it's really bugging you or you do it a lot, then consider implementing a special constructor for it:
public void DisplayEditModel(Display dto)
{
this.SetFrom(dto);
}
or a static factory method:
public static DisplayEditModel CreateFrom(Display dto)
{
var model = new DisplayEditModel();
model.SetFrom(dto);
return model;
}
Either option has a clear intent, lets you create and return the object in a single line, and is idiomatic. It does require a few extra lines of code in DisplayEditModel, but I doubt it will be a serious problem.

C# Dynamic Invoking

Good Day,
I have a situation where I'm using code that contains a class called ImportFileContext. The code looks like:
// One of 5 different types can be passed in
public AddImportData(CustomType ModelData)
{
// Depending on which 5 different types, the formatted type will change
FormattedType data = ConvertModelDataToFormattedData(ModelData);
using (var db = new ImportFileContext())
{
// Can this next line be made dynamic?
db.ImportFormattedData.Add(data);
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
Basically, a CustomType will always be passed in to the method. However, there are five different custom types that can be passed in. Depending on which 5 can be passed in, the data will be modified.
Use cases:
Custom Type passed in, format data to a specific format, then add that item to
List of the db instance.
Custom Type 2 passed in, format data to a specific format, then add that item to
List of the db instance.
Custom Type 3 passed in, format data to a specific format, then add that item to
List of the db instance.
So what I'm looking for is a way add an item to the List depending on the data type without having to write several different methods to test which type I'm receiving then adding the item. I know of the strategy pattern and I could use that, but what about adding an item to a list?
I'm really trying to avoid writing code that would look like:
// One of 5 different types can be passed in
public AddImportData(CustomType ModelData)
{
// Depending on which 5 different types, the formatted type will change
FormattedType data = ConvertModelDataToFormattedData(ModelData);
using (var db = new ImportFileContext())
{
if (typeof(ModelData) == "CustomType")
db.ImportFormattedData.Add(data);
elseif (typeof(ModelData) == "CustomType1")
db.ImportCsvData.Add(data);
elseif (typeof(ModelData) == "CustomType2")
db.ImportTabDelimetedData.Add(data);
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
TIA,
coson

I don't know how feasible this is for your application, but you can always add the specific behavior to the CustomType class and subclasses can implement it however they need to.
public class CustomType
{
public virtual void FormatAndWriteToDB(DataBase db);
}
And then sublasses override as needed
public class CustomType1 : CustomType
{
public override void FormatAndWriteToDB(DataBase db)
{
FormattedType data = ConvertModelDataToFormattedData(ModelData);
db.ImportCsvData.Add(data);
}
}
That would make your code very clean in the example method:
public AddImportData(CustomType ModelData)
{
ModelData.FormatAndWriteToDB(db);
db.SaveChanges();
}
Of course you can change this around a bit. For example, if the FormattedType call is common to all of them, you could leave that in the AddImportData method and pass it as an argument to the FormatAndWriteToDB method.
The advantage of this is future additions just require implementing the new subclass of CustomType and no modification is needed to AddImportData.

Sounds to me like you're looking for double-dispatch. You can do this with the Visitor Pattern--which is basically what David Mason detailed--where you decouple the algorithm from the data by putting logic (the visit) into the class that contains the data. That, of course works, but requires you to modify the class outside of the algorithm in order to visit.
I find this complex and it's really just there because statically typed object oriented languages don't normally do runtime overloading. Fortunately in C# 4 they introduced the dynamic keyword which allows use to implement double dispatch much easier--or at least in a way that looks more like method overloading. Which means you create the method overloads, assign the value to dynamic variable, then invoke the method. The method that gets call will be chosen at runtime based on the value. For example:
public static void AddImportData(CustomType ModelData)
{
FormattedType data = ConvertModelDataToFormattedData(ModelData);
using (var db = new ImportFileContext())
{
dynamic temp = ModelData;
ImportData(ModelData, data, db);
}
}
private static void ImportData(CustomType modelData, FormattedType data, ImportFileContext db)
{
db.ImportFormattedData.Add(data);
db.SaveChanges();
}
private static void ImportData(CustomType1 modelData, FormattedType data, ImportFileContext db)
{
db.ImportCsvData.Add(data);
db.SaveChanges();
}
private static void ImportData(CustomType1 modelData, FormattedType data, ImportFileContext db)
{
db.ImportTabDelimetedData.Add(data);
db.SaveChanges();
}
I have more details on my blog at: http://msmvps.com/blogs/peterritchie/archive/2010/05/24/using-the-dynamic-keyword-in-c-to-improve-object-orientation.aspx

A dictionary with a built-in factory?

I have a solution that works, but for educational purposes I want to understand if there is a better/cleaner/right way to do it.
Problem: In my "client" app I have a dictionary Dictionary<String, PremiseObject> where the key (String) is a immutable URL to a resource (it's actually a REST URL). PremiseObject is the base type of a whole set of derived classes; thus the Dictionary actually contains a family of classes all derived from PremiseObject.
A key requirement is I want to try to 'guarantee' that no PremiseObjects get created OUTSIDE of the dictionary.
Solution: I have the following function for getting a object out of the dictionary. It either accesses the existing instance, or if it does not exist creates it:
public PremiseObject GetOrCreateServerObject(string premiseObjectType, string location)
{
PremiseObject po = null;
if (!premiseObjects.TryGetValue(location, out po))
{
string classname;
// Create an instance of the right PremiseObject derived class:
po = // gobbly-gook that is not relevant to this question.
premiseObjects.Add(location, po);
}
else
{
Debug.WriteLine("Already exists: {0}", location);
}
return po;
}
Callers do this:
DoorSensor door =
(DoorSensor)server.GetOrCreateServerObject("DoorSensor",
"http://xyz/FrontDoor");
Works great. But I think there's a pattern or design that would elegantly allow me to encapsulate the "single-instance of each object contained in the dictionary" more.
For example, callers could do this:
DoorSensor door = null;
if (!server.ServerObjects.TryGetValue("DoorSensor",
"http://xyz/FrontDoor",
out door))
Debug.WriteLine("Something went very wrong");
I'm not really what to call this pattern. My ServerObjects are "single-instanced" by location. And my GetOrCreateServerObject is like a factory that lazy creates.
But it's possible for instances to be created that don't get put into the dictionary, which could lead to problems.
Like I said, what I have works... Cheers!
UPDATE 1/26/2011 10:13PM -
I just realized a potential problem: On the server side the object represented by a location/URL can actually be multi-inherited. It is THEORETICALLY possible for an object to be both a DoorSensor and an DigitalRelay.
I currently don't care about any of those cases (e.g. for garage doors I simplified my example above; there really is no DoorSensor I exposed, just a GarageDoorOpener which includes BOTH properties for sensing (e.g. Status) and actuation (e.g. Trigger). But this puts a wrinkle in my whole scheme if I were to care. Since this project is just for me :-) I am going to declare I don't care and document it.

I would propose the following simple idea:
PremiseObject's constructor is declared internal.
A special factory object is responsible for creating (or returning an already created) instances. The dictionary is a part of the factory.
Clients are located in another assembly.
This way PremiseObjects can be created by clients only through the factory. This way you can guarantee that only single instance of object exists for each location.
A variant of the idea would be to declare the PremiseObject's constructor private, and declare the factory a friend; but (unlike C++) C# doesn't have a friend notion.

Ok you can probably avoid a parameter and a cast (in the consumer code any way) with a generic method.
public abstract class PremiseObject
{
protected PremiseObject()
{
}
public string Location { get; set; }
public static void GetSensor<T>(string location, out T sensor)
where T : PremiseObject, new()
{
PremiseObject so;
if(_locationSingltons.TryGetValue(location, out so))
{
sensor = (T) so; // this will throw and exception if the
// wrong type has been created.
return;
}
sensor = new T();
sensor.Location = location;
_locationSingltons.Add(location, sensor);
}
private static Dictionary<string, PremiseObject> _locationSingltons
= new Dictionary<string, PremiseObject>();
}
Then the calling code looks a bit nicer:
DoorSensor frontDoor;
PremiseObject.GetSensor("http://FrontDoor/etc", out frontDoor);
So I like that calling convention - if you want to stay away from throwing an exception you can change the return type to bool and indicate failure that way. Personally I wouls say that an exception is what you want.
You may prefer the call without the out parameter - but if you do that then you have to supply the type to the method call - anyway defining the factory method would look like this:
public static T GetSensor<T>(string location) where T : PremiseObject, new()
{
PremiseObject so;
if (_locationSingltons.TryGetValue(location, out so))
{
return (T)so; // this will throw and exception if the
// wrong type has been created.
}
T result = new T();
result.Location = location;
_locationSingltons.Add(location, result);
return result;
}
Then the calling code looks like this:
var frontDoor2 = PremiseObject.GetSensor<DoorSensor>("http://FrontDoor/etc");
I like both these approaches because nothing has to be repeated. The type of the PremiseObject only gets stated once - there is no need for a string defining the type.

If you want to be really, really sure that no instances of PremiseObject get created that aren't placed in the dictionary, you could make the constructors all private, and create a static constructor (for each subclass) that took as a parameter the Dictionary object you're referring to. This static constructor would check the dictionary object to make sure that there wasn't an existing instance, and then return either the new or the existing instance as required. So something like this:
public class PremiseObject
{
public static Dictionary<string, PremiseObject> PremiseObjects { get; private set; }
static PremiseObject()
{
PremiseObjects = new Dictionary<string, PremiseObject>();
}
}
public class DerivedPremiseObject : PremiseObject
{
private DerivedPremiseObject()
{
}
public static DerivedPremiseObject GetDerivedPremiseObject(string location)
{
DerivedPremiseObject po = null;
if (!PremiseObject.PremiseObjects.TryGetValue(location, out po))
{
po = new DerivedPremiseObject();
PremiseObject.PremiseObjects.Add(location, po);
}
return po;
}
}
And there are a variety of similar strategies you could use. The key is to somehow make the constructor private and only allow access to the constructor through a static method that enforces the logic of the class construction.

Perhaps you could make PremiseObject a singleton, then you wouldn't have to worry about each object in the dictionary beign a single instance?

In the general case, setting access modifiers on your constructors should do the trick of not allowing anyone external to create the objects (barring reflection). However, these would need to be internal, so anything else in the assembly would be able to instantiate them.
I suspect many of your requirements may be met by using an off the shelf dependency injection container that supports singleton instances. It feels close, but maybe not quite the same. (possibly StrutureMap, Ninject, Castle Windsor, or Unity in no particular order)