We Keep Coding

Prototype pattern: ensure clone is in a valid state

LogEvent represents information like log level, message, user, process name, ...
Some of these properties' values require pretty much effort for generation, e. g. the process name. Those properties' generated values are usually not changed, BUT despite this fact it should be possible to change them.
I considered the prototype pattern starting with a protoype, whose generic properties are pre-allocated. The protoype stays the same object during the lifetime of the application, but its properties' values might change as described above. New LogEvent objects should use the current prototype's values, objects created before the change should continue using the old values, that means, referencing the prototype from the "real" LogEvent object is not an option.
However the "real" LogEvent requires some properties to be not null, whereas this requirement is not useful for the prototype. I would like to prevent invalid objects of LogEvent. However if I use usual protoype pattern I would have to add a constructor to create the prototype, but this constructor would not create a valid object and I want to avoid, that an invalid object (the prototype itself or a clone of it) is used accidentally.
I spent some time on searching a solution, but the approaches listed below are pretty ugly. I hope, that there is an elegant solution. Meanwhile I tend to option 3, because 1 and 2 do not seem to be clean.
General structure
public interface ILogEvent
{
string PreAllocatedProperty1 { get; set; }
string PreAllocatedProperty2 { get; set; }
string IndividualProperty1 { get; set; }
string IndividualProperty2 { get; set; }
}
Option 1
Pros
LogEventPrototype can not be used as ILogEvent.
properties do not have to be declared in multiple classes
Cons
properties have to be mapped manually
static methods => interface for prototypes not possible
Code
class LogEventPrototype
{
public string PreAllocatedProperty1 { get; set; }
public string PreAllocatedProperty2 { get; set; }
public string IndividualProperty1 { get; set; }
public string IndividualProperty2 { get; set; }
public LogEventPrototype() { GeneratePreAllocatedProperties(); }
private void GeneratePreAllocatedProperties()
{
// if you invoke the helper functions later again,
// they might return different results (e. g.: user identity, ...)
PreAllocatedProperty1 = Helper.ComplexFunction();
PreAllocatedProperty2 = Helper.AnotherComplexFunction();
}
}
class LogEvent : LogEventPrototype, ILogEvent
{
// just for creating the prototype, object will be in an INVALID state
private LogEvent() : base() { }
// object will be in a VALID state
public LogEvent(string individualProperty2)
: this()
{
if (individualProperty2 == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException();
IndividualProperty2 = individualProperty2;
}
public static LogEvent FromPrototype(LogEventPrototype prototype)
{
// clone manually
return new LogEvent(prototype.IndividualProperty2)
{
IndividualProperty1 = prototype.IndividualProperty1,
PreAllocatedProperty1 = prototype.PreAllocatedProperty1,
PreAllocatedProperty2 = prototype.PreAllocatedProperty2
};
}
}
Option 2
Similar to option 1, but:
Pros
it is "ensured", that LogEventPrototype is never instantiated, it is just used as return type
no manual mapping
Cons: It seems to be hacky.
class LogEventPrototype
{
// properties ... (same as in option 1)
protected LogEventPrototype()
{
GeneratePreAllocatedProperties();
}
}
class LogEvent : LogEventPrototype, ILogEvent
{
// constructors same as in option 1; FromPrototype() removed
public static LogEventPrototype CreateProtoype()
{
return new LogEvent();
}
public static LogEvent FromPrototype(LogEventPrototype prototype)
{
if(prototype.IndividualProperty2 == null)
throw new ArgumentException();
return (LogEvent)prototype;
}
public static LogEventPrototype CreateProtoype()
{
return new LogEvent();
}
}
Option 3
Do not use a dedicated class for prototypes, but make the LogEvent constructor public and risk invalid LogEvent objects. Use a Validate() method instead and hope, that a client does not forget to use it.

Runtime property override in order to fetch historical data

I'm currently finishing work on object change log functionality and would like to polish few things. Since we have a lot of web forms/reports where historical data should appear, I'm wondering if there is a way to implement that without changing controls/reports.
Currently, I have this situation:
public class Foo {
public string Property1 { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedDate { get; set;}
public string GetHistoricalValue(string propertyName)
{
HistoryHelper historyHelper = CreateHistoryHelper(this);
return historyHelper.GetHistoricalValue(propertyName, CreatedDate);
}
...
public class HistoryHelper {
public string GetHistoricalValue(string propertyName, DateTime date) {
...
So, when someone wants to fetch historical data for Property1:
string historicalValue = fooInstance.GetHistoricalValue("Property1");
It's obvious that this approach requires a lot of changes in current application.
Is there a way to make Foo class returns historical value when I access Property1 in regular way:
string historicalValue = fooInstance.Property1;
Something like dynamically generating subclass with overriden properties or some other solution?
Is this possible?

INITIAL ANSWER
Something like this:
public class Foo {
public bool HistoricalMode { get; set; }
private string _property1;
public string Property1 {
get {
if (HistoricalMode) {
return GetHistoricalValue("Property1");
} else {
return _property1;
}
set {
if (HistoricalMode){
throw new NotSupportedException("Updates not possible in historical mode.");
} else {
_property1 = value;
}
}
}
public DateTime CreatedDate {
get {
// Similar pattern as above
}
set {
// Similar pattern as above
}
}
public string GetHistoricalValue(string propertyName) {
HistoryHelper historyHelper = CreateHistoryHelper(this);
return historyHelper.GetHistoricalValue(propertyName, CreatedDate);
}
}
Basically the idea is to keep a boolean in your objects which indicates in the object is in 'history mode'. If so, use your helper method. If not, normal properties getters/setters apply.
UPDATE
The solution to this question I think would require a change in your framework (if you have a single framework for all your applications). I would seek the solution in the way you are loading your objects. Hopefully you can detect when an object is required in 'historical mode' and when in 'normale mode'. Where you now 'just read' the object (record) from the database, in historical mode you need to compose the original object (from when the change happened) from your change log functionality. That way, all your current application can (hopefully) stay the way they are. The 'only' change you need to do is at the repository class.
This is all just speculation btw.

Can you easily affect how Foo instances are created? If so, you can for example create derived class HistoricalFoo : Foo, make Property1 virtual and use its getter to change its behaviour. Then use HistoricalFoo whenever you need historical data. It is not a very clean object model, but can get the job done.
public class Foo
{
protected string _property1;
public virtual string Property1
{
get { return _property1; }
set { _property1 = value; }
}
public DateTime CreatedDate { get; set;}
/* ... */
}
public class HistoricalFoo : Foo
{
public override string Property1
{
get
{
return GetHistoricalValue("Property1");
}
}
}
If this is not applicable, it's possible to embed some decision logic into the Property1 getter. In this scenario, you would have to change the internal state of the Foo instance - for example by setting a boolean flag IsInHistoryMode. Changing object states can be very tricky though, expecially in multithreaded environment.
public class Foo
{
public bool IsInHistoryMode { get; set; }
protected string _property1;
public virtual string Property1
{
get
{
if(IsInHistoryMode)
{
return GetHistoricalValue("Property1");
}
return _property1;
}
set
{
_property1 = value;
}
}
public DateTime CreatedDate { get; set;}
/* ... */
}

Looking for a short & simple example of getters/setters in C#

I am having trouble understanding the concept of getters and setters in the C# language. In languages like Objective-C, they seem an integral part of the system, but not so much in C# (as far as I can tell). I have read books and articles already, so my question is, to those of you who understand getters & setters in C#, what example would you personally use if you were teaching the concept to a complete beginner (this would include as few lines of code as possible)?

I think a bit of code will help illustrate what setters and getters are:
public class Foo
{
private string bar;
public string GetBar()
{
return bar;
}
public void SetBar(string value)
{
bar = value;
}
}
In this example we have a private member of the class that is called bar. The GetBar() and SetBar(string value) methods do exactly what they are named - one retrieves the bar member, and the other sets its value.
In C# 1.1 and later, you have properties. The basic functionality is also the same:
public class Foo
{
private string bar;
public string Bar
{
get { return bar; }
set { bar = value; }
}
}
The private member bar is not accessible outside the class, but the public Bar is, and it has two accessors: get, which returns the private member just as the GetBar() example above, and also a set, which corresponds to the SetBar(string value) method in the aforementioned example.
Starting with C# 3.0 and above, the compiler was optimized to the point that such properties do not need to be explicitly given a private member as their source. The compiler automatically generates a private member of that type and uses it as a source of a property.
public class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; set; }
}
What the code shows is an automatic property that has a private member generated by the compiler. You don't see the private member, but it is there. This also introduced a couple of other issues - mainly with access control. In C# 1.1 and 2.0, you could omit the get or set portion of a property entirely:
public class Foo
{
private string bar;
public string Bar
{
get { return bar; }
}
}
Giving you the chance to restrict how other objects interact with the Bar property of the Foo class. But from C# 3.0 to before 6.0, if you chose to use automatic properties, you would have to specify the access to the property as follows to emulate that behavior:
public class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; private set; }
}
The set accessor would still exist, but only the class itself could use it to set Bar to some value, and anyone could still get the value.
Thankfully, starting in C# 6.0, properties can be made read- or write-only again by simply omitting the property's get or set respectively (not to be confused with the readonly keyword):
public class Foo
{
// Read-only property
public string Bar { get; }
// Write-only property (less common)
public string Baz { set; }
}

In C#, Properties represent your Getters and Setters.
Here's an example:
public class PropertyExample
{
private int myIntField = 0;
public int MyInt
{
// This is your getter.
// it uses the accessibility of the property (public)
get
{
return myIntField;
}
// this is your setter
// Note: you can specify different accessibility
// for your getter and setter.
protected set
{
// You can put logic into your getters and setters
// since they actually map to functions behind the scenes
if (DoSomeValidation(value))
{
// The input of the setter is always called "value"
// and is of the same type as your property definition
myIntField = value;
}
}
}
}
You would access this property just like a field. For example:
PropertyExample example = new PropertyExample();
example.MyInt = 4; // sets myIntField to 4
Console.WriteLine( example.MyInt ); // prints 4
A few other things to note:
You don't have to specifiy both a getter and a setter, you can omit either one.
Properties are just "syntactic sugar" for your traditional getter and setter. The compiler will actually build get_ and set_ functions behind the scenes (in the compiled IL) and map all references to your property to those functions.

My explanation would be following. (It's not so short, but it's quite simple.)
Imagine a class with a variable:
class Something
{
int weight;
// and other methods, of course, not shown here
}
Well, there is a small problem with this class: no one can see the weight. We could make weight public, but then everyone would be able to change the weight at any moment (which is perhaps not what we want). So, well, we can do a function:
class Something
{
int weight;
public int GetWeight() { return weight; }
// and other methods
}
This is already better, but now everyone instead of plain something.Weight has to type something.GetWeight(), which is, well, ugly.
With properties, we can do the same, but the code stays clean:
class Something
{
public int weight { get; private set; }
// and other methods
}
int w = something.weight // works!
something.weight = x; // doesn't even compile
Nice, so with the properties we have finer control over the variable access.
Another problem: okay, we want the outer code to be able to set weight, but we'd like to control its value, and not allow the weights lower than 100. Moreover, there are is some other inner variable density, which depends on weight, so we'd want to recalculate the density as soon as the weight changes.
This is traditionally achieved in the following way:
class Something
{
int weight;
public int SetWeight(int w)
{
if (w < 100)
throw new ArgumentException("weight too small");
weight = w;
RecalculateDensity();
}
// and other methods
}
something.SetWeight(anotherSomething.GetWeight() + 1);
But again, we don't want expose to our clients that setting the weight is a complicated operation, it's semantically nothing but assigning a new weight. So the code with a setter looks the same way, but nicer:
class Something
{
private int _w;
public int Weight
{
get { return _w; }
set
{
if (value < 100)
throw new ArgumentException("weight too small");
_w = value;
RecalculateDensity();
}
}
// and other methods
}
something.Weight = otherSomething.Weight + 1; // much cleaner, right?
So, no doubt, properties are "just" a syntactic sugar. But it makes the client's code be better. Interestingly, the need for property-like things arises very often, you can check how often you find the functions like GetXXX() and SetXXX() in the other languages.

Most languages do it this way, and you can do it in C# too.
public void setRAM(int RAM)
{
this.RAM = RAM;
}
public int getRAM()
{
return this.RAM;
}
But C# also gives a more elegant solution to this:
public class Computer
{
int ram;
public int RAM
{
get
{
return ram;
}
set
{
ram = value; // value is a reserved word and it is a variable that holds the input that is given to ram ( like in the example below )
}
}
}
And later access it with:
Computer comp = new Computer();
comp.RAM = 1024;
int var = comp.RAM;
For newer versions of C# it's even better:
public class Computer
{
public int RAM { get; set; }
}
and later:
Computer comp = new Computer();
comp.RAM = 1024;
int var = comp.RAM;

C# introduces properties which do most of the heavy lifting for you...
ie
public string Name { get; set; }
is a C# shortcut to writing...
private string _name;
public string getName { return _name; }
public void setName(string value) { _name = value; }
Basically getters and setters are just means of helping encapsulation. When you make a class you have several class variables that perhaps you want to expose to other classes to allow them to get a glimpse of some of the data you store. While just making the variables public to begin with may seem like an acceptable alternative, in the long run you will regret letting other classes manipulate your classes member variables directly. If you force them to do it through a setter, you can add logic to ensure no strange values ever occur, and you can always change that logic in the future without effecting things already manipulating this class.
ie
private string _name;
public string getName { return _name; }
public void setName(string value)
{
//Don't want things setting my Name to null
if (value == null)
{
throw new InvalidInputException();
}
_name = value;
}

well here is common usage of getter setter in actual use case,
public class OrderItem
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public int quantity {get;set;}
public int Price {get;set;}
public int TotalAmount {get {return this.quantity *this.Price;}set;}
}

This would be a get/set in C# using the smallest amount of code possible. You get auto-implemented properties in C# 3.0+.
public class Contact
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}

As far as I understand getters and setters are to improve encapsulation.
There is nothing complex about them in C#.
You define a property of on object like this:
int m_colorValue = 0;
public int Color
{
set { m_colorValue = value; }
get { return m_colorValue; }
}
This is the most simple use. It basically sets an internal variable or retrieves its value.
You use a Property like this:
someObject.Color = 222; // sets a color 222
int color = someObject.Color // gets the color of the object
You could eventually do some processing on the value in the setters or getters like this:
public int Color
{
set { m_colorValue = value + 5; }
get { return m_colorValue - 30; }
}
if you skip set or get, your property will be read or write only. That's how I understand the stuff.

Simple example
public class Simple
{
public int Propery { get; set; }
}

Getters and Setters in C# are something that simplifies the code.
private string name = "spots";
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}
And calling it (assume we have a person obj with a name property):
Console.WriteLine(Person.Name); //prints "spots"
Person.Name = "stops";
Console.Writeline(Person.Name); //prints "stops"
This simplifies your code. Where in Java you might have to have two methods, one to Get() and one to Set() the property, in C# it is all done in one spot. I usually do this at the start of my classes:
public string foobar {get; set;}
This creates a getter and setter for my foobar property. Calling it is the same way as shown before. Somethings to note are that you don't have to include both get and set. If you don't want the property being modified, don't include set!

Internally, getters and setters are just methods. When C# compiles, it generates methods for your getters and setters like this, for example:
public int get_MyProperty() { ... }
public void set_MyProperty(int value) { ... }
C# allows you to declare these methods using a short-hand syntax. The line below will be compiled into the methods above when you build your application.
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
or
private int myProperty;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return myProperty; }
set { myProperty = value; } // value is an implicit parameter containing the value being assigned to the property.
}

This is a basic example of an object "Article" with getters and setters:
public class Article
{
public String title;
public String link;
public String description;
public string getTitle()
{
return title;
}
public void setTitle(string value)
{
title = value;
}
public string getLink()
{
return link;
}
public void setLink(string value)
{
link = value;
}
public string getDescription()
{
return description;
}
public void setDescription(string value)
{
description = value;
}
}

In case someone is looking for a short version of getter only (I was):
public class Foo
{
private string bar;
public string Bar => bar;
}

C#: Properties with different return types on derived classes

I tried to search for an answer for this problem but could not find much, most probably because I do not know how to look for it properly, so here it goes. All help is very much appreciated.
With the base class that looks like
abstract public class Property
{
private String name;
public Property(String propertyName)
{
name = propertyName;
}
public String Name
{
get { return name; }
}
abstract public override String ToString();
}
And derived classes that look like
public class StringProperty : Property
{
private String value; // different properties for different types
public StringProperty(String propertyName, String value) : base(propertyName)
{
this.value = value;
}
public String Value // different signature for different properties
{
get { return value; }
}
public override String ToString()
{
return base.Name + ": " + value;
}
}
During runtime, the function receives a collection of "Property" objects. What do I need to do to be able to obtain the "Value" of each? Do I need to have a big if statement to query the type of each "Property" object? If not, is there a more elegant solution?
I tried to define an abstract "Value" property to be overridden but since the return types are different, it did not work. I also tried playing with shadowing the "Value" property, but I could not make it work. The idea of using an COM-like Variant does not sound very appropriate, either.
Thanks a lot in advance.
EDIT:
I should have added details as to what I am trying to do. The properties are displayed in a Winforms app. Different "TextBox"es represent different properties and are filtered for proper input (depending on the type). The updated values are read back and stored. The container object will be serialized into JSON and deserialized on an Android and iPhone client and eventually these values will be passed into a layer running native C++ code doing OpenGL stuff. I don't know in advance the kind of all needed properties so as the middleman, I wanted to make my code as robust as possible while being able to feed the OpenGL engine.

You can use a generic class:
public class AnyProperty<T> : Property
{
private T value;
// ... etc
I'd really recommend making the base class an Interface by now:
public interface IProperty
{
public String Name { get; }
}
public class Property<T> : IProperty
{
public Property(String name, T value)
{
Name = name;
Value = value;
}
public String Name { get; private set; }
public T Value { get; private set; }
public override String ToString()
{
return string.Format("{0}: {1}", Name, Value)
}
}
Here is sample usage:
var intProp = new Property<int> ("age", 32);
var strProp = new Property<string> ("name", "Earl");
var enumProp = new Property<ColorEnum> ("eye color", ColorEnum.Magenta);
To make the construction even simpler, you could have a factory method:
public static Property<T> MakeProperty(string name, T value)
{
return new Property<T>(name,value);
}
var intProp = MakeProperty("age", 32);
var strProp = MakeProperty("name", "Earl");
var enumProp = MakeProperty("eye color", ColorEnum.Magenta);
Not necessarily recommended, and a bit OT:
You could make it even funkier with an extension method:
public static Property<T> AsProp<T>(this T value, string name)
{
return new Property<T>(name,value);
}
var intProp = 32.AsProp("age");
var strProp = "Earl".AsProp("name");
var enumProp = ColorEnum.Magenta.AsProp("eye color");

You would have to simply use the object type. What are you trying to accomplish? The problem here isn't the structure of your classes, it's the function that receives the collection of Property objects. It's impossible to even cast something to an unknown type, since you don't know what type of variable it needs to be stored in.
So basically, your Property.Value property needs to be of type object. In your method that uses the Property objects, you need to do something with them, and what you're doing will decide how it should be structured. Are you printing values out? Have a *Value class inheriting from an abstract PropertyValue class and override ToString() to return an appropriate string represention.

I made a few changes to your sample code and got this result...
abstract public class Property
{
private readonly String _name;
public Property(String propertyName)
{
_name = propertyName;
}
public String Name
{
get { return _name; }
}
abstract public override String ToString();
}
public class StringProperty : Property
{
private readonly dynamic _value; // different properties for different types
public StringProperty(String propertyName, dynamic value)
: base(propertyName)
{
this._value = value;
}
public dynamic Value // different signature for different properties
{
get { return _value; }
}
public override String ToString()
{
return base.Name + ": " + _value;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StringProperty sp = new StringProperty("A double", 3.444);
StringProperty sp2 = new StringProperty("My int", 4343);
StringProperty sp3 = new StringProperty("My directory", new DirectoryInfo("Some directory"));
StringProperty sp4 = new StringProperty("My null", null);
Console.WriteLine(sp);
Console.WriteLine(sp2);
Console.WriteLine(sp3);
Console.WriteLine(sp4);
}
}
Values are properly printed to the console in the expected way.

It would require a bit of a rethink, but have you considered using the dynamic type (introduced in .net4)
Doesn't really solve your problem, but sidespteps it.
Your properties can bascically just be a
Dictionary<String, dynamic>
, the gotcha is they don't get evaluated until runtime, so you get no compiler support for typing.
so given you want
int SomeValue = MyProperties[SomePropertyName] + 10;
So if
MyProperties[SomePropertyName] = 10; // all is good
if its 76.52 or Fred, the addition will throw an exception at the point it executes.
Code is much simpler and cleaner, no extra casting and the amount of scaffolding required is minimal, BUT, you'll need to unit test code that uses the dictionary extensively and religiously.

How to implement a class to access objects of several different types in C#?

I'm trying to implement a class to access items of different types, in a similar way to database rows.
However, I have two different ideas in mind, and I don't know which one to choose:
Design 1
public enum ObjectTypeA
{
Undefined,
Integer,
Float
}
public class MyObjectA
{
private object val;
public ObjectTypeA Type
{
get;
private set;
}
public int Integer
{
get
{
if (Type != ObjectTypeA.Integer) throw new Exception();
return (int)val;
}
set
{
Type = ObjectTypeA.Integer;
val = value;
}
}
public float Float
{
get
{
if (Type != ObjectTypeA.Float) throw new Exception();
return (float)val;
}
set
{
Type = ObjectTypeA.Float;
val = value;
}
}
}
Less compile-time checks possible.
Can't use the is operator, GetType(), etc. (reinvents the type system).
Boxing and unboxing for value types.
Can be inherited by other classes (e.g. I can create a "named object" using inheritance).
Design 2
public abstract class MyObjectB
{
}
public class MyIntegerB : MyObjectB
{
public int Value
{
get;
set;
}
public MyIntegerB(int _value)
{
Value = _value;
}
}
public class MyFloatB : MyObjectB
{
public float Value
{
get;
set;
}
public MyFloatB(float _value)
{
Value = _value;
}
}
Shorter and simpler implementation.
Very verbose (casting) to use.
Performance is not critical, but it's still important, since most of the objects that are going to be stored are integers or floats, so boxing overhead matters.
The classes will just contain the values, not methods that depend on the type, etc. so it doesn't matter if the solution uses inheritance.
IMPORTANT: One of the requirements is that there may be two types that use the same underlying type (e.g. two classes derived from MyObjectB may use int as the Value), so using object or generics may not be possible.
Any suggestion about which design to use, or another different design?
EDIT:
The reason I don't like the second one is because it's very verbose to use:
MyObjectB objB = new MyIntegerB(12);
Console.WriteLine(((MyIntegerB)objB).Value);
And because I can't inherit it to create something like a "named object", so I have to attach MyObjectB to the class, and the usage is even more verbose.

I don't see why you wouldn't use generics here. More strongly: I don't see why you need this at all: It seems like Nullable<T> would cover all of your use cases very nicely. If not, implementing this generically is trivial:
public class ValueWrapper<T>
{
public T Value
{
get;
private set;
}
public Type WrappedType
{
get { return typeof(T); }
}
}
public MySpecialInt : ValueWrapper<int>
{
/* etc */
}

why not use generics?
public abstract class MyObjectB<T>
{
public T Value
{
get;
set;
}
public MyObjectB(T _value)
{
Value = _value;
}
}
you only need one class at this point. just instantiate it differently:
var myObj = new MyObjectB<Int>(1);
or
var myObj = new MyObjectB<Float>(0.012);

I know you mentioned not wanting to deal with boxing and unboxing, but I still think a Generic class would be your best bet here.
public class MyObject<T>
{
public MyObject(T t) {
Value = t;
}
public T Value { get; set; }
}
Edit:
One of the requirements is that there
may be two types that use the same
underlying type (e.g. two classes
derived from MyObjectB may use int as
the Value), so using object or
generics may not be possible.
That would only apply if you're extending the class. There's no problem if you wrap the class instead, i.e. create a MyObject<int> and access its Value property, rather than subclassing it.
Having said that, if you want to subclass a generic class, the subclass would also need to be a generic class.

Have you considered generics?
public class MyObjectA<T> {
public T Value {
get; set;
}
}

I've written a similar class that could hold either a single instance of ClassX or an array of ClassX. The trick was that it could change during runtime, so a generic wouldn't suffice, but I still wanted it strong-typed in all cases. It sounds like that's similar to what you're trying to accomplish here.
I chose the first option, and here's why: Wherever possible, I encapsulate complexity within a class to make the class easier to use. Classes should encapsulate away complexity from the caller, making calls to it more concise. If using MyObjectB makes your code more verbose, than I don't think that's the right answer.

if you need heterogeneous collections then this would do.
public enum ObjectTypeA
{
Undefined,
Integer,
Float
}
public class MyObjectA
{
public MyObjectA(object value) : this(value, InfereType(value))
{ }
public MyObjectA(object value, ObjectTypeA type)
{
Value = value;
Type = type;
}
public object Value { get; private set; }
public ObjectTypeA Type
{
get;
private set;
}
public T ValueAs<T>()
{
return (T)Value;
}
}
then use it like
List<MyObjectA> list = GetAllValues();
foreach (var item in list)
{
switch (item.WrappedType)
{
case MyObjecttypeA.Float:
float f = item.ValueAs<float>();
// do something with float
}
}