I've got an event that literally just lets the user know something happened. They have to manually take action for that event, as no data is passed from it.
However, I'm not sure what would be more idiomatic:
public event Action MyEvent;
//clearly says no arguments
public event EventHandler MyEvent;
//uses the EventHandler class to no effect, but might be more idiomatic.
public event Action<object> MyEvent;
//just like the first but passes the sender if needed.
Which would be the standard way to do this?
The idiomatic approach would be to just use EventHandler. Pass in an appropriate sender if you have one or null otherwise, and EventArgs.Empty.
I know it's somewhat crazy, but that's the convention. Bear in mind that plain EventArgs has no useful information in it, so any EventHandler-based event is basically saying "I may get a sender, but that's probably all."
However, with delegate variance as of C# 2, there is a benefit to this: you can use the same event handling method for all events which follow the convention... so you can have (say) logging event handlers which use reflection to dump whatever information they are given in the EventArgs, even if they don't know about it at compile-time.
It's not the greatest argument in the world for a convention, admittedly - but it's a reasonably strong one. Of course routed events are slightly different in how they're subscribed, but even so the delegates follow the same pattern.
the following is a function that invokes the event and thus notifies all clients.
public static void OnEventXYZ(XYZEventArgs e)
{
if(EventXYZ!=null)
EventXYZ(new object(),e);
}
This is from a sample code.
What i want to know is "What is the significance of new object()?
is this a syntax followed or only for this situation?
Normally you pass this as the sender parameter of an event handler.
However, in this case, the event is static so you cannot use this. The person who wrote that sample chose to pass new object() instead. I think most people would pass null instead but that's really a matter of personnal preference.
That parameter is for the sender of the event. Normally, you would use this, but that will not work in the static context.
EventXYZ seems to have been written to expect a sender (typical with event handlers). In the case of the static "On"blahBlah event raiser, the sender isn't really dealt with clearly. As another responder posted, it seems to be an attempt to satisfy the sender property of the event args that are passed along to the handler.
A more correct implementation would likely either omit the sender from the EventArgs or allow the static "OnBlahBlah" method an argument that allows the caller to specify the sender.
The use of "new object()" in this case seems like confusing fluff, IMHO. But, then again, we don't technically know the signature of the constructor being used in this case... perhaps the first argument is meant to be "Some random object that will be used as the thing we can blame later when your hard drive gets formatted".. maybe a new, empty, meaningless object is perfect for this.
Another thing to look for is that you may consider rewriting the code to be this:
public static void OnEventXYZ(XYZEventArgs e)
{
var evt = EventXYZ;
if(evt != null)
evt(new object(),e);
}
.. In a nutshell, that is a typical "sender as first argument" pattern that you see in 99% of event args / event handlers. Better examples will probably make more sense.
You can also use ILSpy or Reflector to look at the thousands of event raisers/handlers in the .NET runtime to get better examples of how the common patterns are coded.
EDIT: BTW, it's unusual to see static OnEvent raisers... it's a little odd. Not technically correct, but it sure messes up the typical "'this' as sender" pattern.
Cheers!
When we want to pass data to an event subscriber, we use EventArgs (or CustomEventArgs) for this.
.Net provides a build in type EventHandler that uses as a parameter an instance of EventArgs class that is build in as well.
What about cases, when I need to notify a subscriber that some action is over, for example search is over? I don't want to even use EventArgs, that won't contain anything.
Is there a build in type for signaling another class, without the need to use empty EventArgs?
I really would advise you to use the standard EventHandler pattern here and just pass EventArgs.Empty. However, you can use Action as an event type if you really want – it is just unusual.
You have several options:
Use a normal event with an EventHandler and the basic EventArg class – sure the event is empty, but does this do any harm?
Make your own delegate and use this with event MyDelegateWithoutParams MyEvent;
Use the Observer Pattern with IObservable instead.
Let clients pass an Action to you and call this action.
I hope one of these options is to your liking. I use 1 and 4 for this kind of situation (4 mostly, if there will be only one "listener").
PS: I guess 2 won't conform to the .NET framework guidelines, so maybe that one is not the best idea ;)
if you use plain delegates surely you can do what you want but if you use events I think the best is to stick on the standard and always have object sender and EventArgs e.
if you really do not know what to pass on firing those events from your own code, just pass EventArgs.Empty as second parameter.
Use Actions (below answer copied from https://stackoverflow.com/a/1689341/1288473):
Declaring:
public event Action EventWithoutParams;
public event Action<int> EventWithIntParam;
Calling:
EventWithoutParams?.Invoke();
EventWithIntParam?.Invoke(123);
I read a question ages ago "How do C# Events work behind the scenes?" and Jon answered that all events are similar to methods...
In a purely hypothetical situation, I was wondering if someone could explain or point me to a resource that says when to use an event over a method?
Basically, If I want to have a big red/green status picture which is linked to a Bool field, and I wanted to change it based on the value of the bool, should I:
a) Have a method called Changepicture which is linked to the field and changes the state of the bool and the picture.
b) Have a get/set part to the field and stick an event in the set part.
c) Have a get/set part to the field and stick a method in the set part.
d) Other?
To gain more information about events see this post.
You have options.
If your object already implements INotifyPropertyChanged and your red/green picture is a control which supports databinding, then you can simply fire the NotifyPropertyCHanged event on the bool's set method, and add a databinding on that property to your control.
If not implementing INotifyPropertyChanged, I would still recommend doing something similar. I.e. creating your own event handler, and having the reg/green picture subscribe to the event. Just straight up calling a method from the set of your property creates a tight coupling, which is generally a bad thing to do.
The answer is: It depends.
If your boolean value is in the codebehind class of your visual component (e.g. WinForm) you can call a method ChangePicture without doing strange things. But if your boolean value is architectural more far away from the visual component an event is the right way to handle the scenario because you can not easily call a method on the visual component because the class that contains the boolean value perhaps doesn´t even know your visual component exists. :)
The best way to figure out what you should do is to look at classes in the .NET framework and see how they are designed.
Methods are "doers" or "actions", while you can see events as notification mechanisms. That is if others could be interested is being notified when something happens in an object then you can surface an event and have one or more subscribers to these events.
Since events in .NET are multi-cast, meaning multiple objects can subscribe and therefore be notified of an event happening, that may be other reason to raise an event in your objects. Events also follow the observer pattern in that the subject (your class) is really unaware of the subscribers (loosely coupled). While in order to call a method, the secondary object needs to have a reference to an instance of your class.
Note that, a method in your class eventually raises and event. So let's say you have a method in your class called ChangePicture. Then in the method's implementation, you could eventually raise an event PictureChanged. if someone is interested in being notified of this event, they can subscribe to this event. This someone is typically not the one that made the method call to change the picture.
Events are delegates. Delegates are objects. Event's are actually MulticastDelegates (a base class in the .NET framework). These objects eventually call a method, which is the method that gets called as part of the event notification. So they are slightly "heavier" then just a method call, but that should almost never determine your design.
According to Microsoft event naming guidelines, the sender parameter in a C# event handler "is always of type object, even if it is possible to use a more specific type".
This leads to lots of event handling code like:
RepeaterItem item = sender as RepeaterItem;
if (item != null) { /* Do some stuff */ }
Why does the convention advise against declaring an event handler with a more specific type?
MyType
{
public event MyEventHander MyEvent;
}
...
delegate void MyEventHander(MyType sender, MyEventArgs e);
Am I missing a gotcha?
For posterity: I agree with the general sentiment in the answers that the convention is to use object (and to pass data via the EventArgs) even when it is possible to use a more specific type, and in real-world programming it is important to follow the convention.
Edit: bait for search: RSPEC-3906 rule "Event Handlers should have the correct signature"
Well, it's a pattern rather than a rule. It does mean that one component can forward on an event from another, keeping the original sender even if it's not the normal type raising the event.
I agree it's a bit strange - but it's probably worth sticking to the convention just for familiarity's sake. (Familiarity for other developers, that is.) I've never been particularly keen on EventArgs myself (given that on its own it conveys no information) but that's another topic. (At least we've got EventHandler<TEventArgs> now - although it would help if there were also an EventArgs<TContent> for the common situation where you just need a single value to be propagated.)
EDIT: It does make the delegate more general purpose, of course - a single delegate type can be reused across multiple events. I'm not sure I buy that as a particularly good reason - particularly in the light of generics - but I guess it's something...
I think there's a good reason for this convention.
Let's take (and expand on) #erikkallen's example:
void SomethingChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) {
EnableControls();
}
...
MyRadioButton.Click += SomethingChanged;
MyCheckbox.Click += SomethingChanged;
MyDropDown.SelectionChanged += SomethingChanged;
...
This is possible (and has been since .Net 1, before generics) because covariance is supported.
Your question makes total sense if you're going top-down - i.e. you need the event in your code, so you add it to your control.
However the convention is to make it easier when writing the components in the first place. You know that for any event the basic pattern (object sender, EventArgs e) will work.
When you add the event you don't know how it will be used, and you don't want to arbitrarily constrain the developers using your component.
Your example of a generic, strongly typed event makes good sense in your code, but won't fit with other components written by other developers. For instance if they want to use your component with those above:
//this won't work
GallowayClass.Changed += SomethingChanged;
In this example the additional type-constraint is just creating pain for the remote developer. They now have to create a new delegate just for your component. If they're using a load of your components they might need a delegate for each one.
I reckon the convention is worth following for anything external or that you expect to be used outside of a close nit team.
I like the idea of the generic event args - I already use something similar.
I use the following delegate when I would prefer a strongly-typed sender.
/// <summary>
/// Delegate used to handle events with a strongly-typed sender.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="TSender">The type of the sender.</typeparam>
/// <typeparam name="TArgs">The type of the event arguments.</typeparam>
/// <param name="sender">The control where the event originated.</param>
/// <param name="e">Any event arguments.</param>
public delegate void EventHandler<TSender, TArgs>(TSender sender, TArgs e) where TArgs : EventArgs;
This can be used in the following manner:
public event EventHandler<TypeOfSender, TypeOfEventArguments> CustomEvent;
Generics and history would play a big part, especially with the number of controls (etc) that expose similar events. Without generics, you would end up with a lot of events exposing Control, which is largely useless:
you still have to cast to do anything useful (except maybe a reference check, which you can do just as well with object)
you can't re-use the events on non-controls
If we consider generics, then again all is well, but you then start getting into issues with inheritance; if class B : A, then should events on A be EventHandler<A, ...>, and events on B be EventHandler<B, ...>? Again, very confusing, hard for tooling, and a bit messy in terms of language.
Until there is a better option that covers all of these, object works; events are almost always on class instances, so there is no boxing etc - just a cast. And casting isn't very slow.
I guess that's because you should be able to do something like
void SomethingChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) {
EnableControls();
}
...
MyRadioButton.Click += SomethingChanged;
MyCheckbox.Click += SomethingChanged;
...
Why do you do the safe cast in your code? If you know that you only use the function as an event handler for the repeater, you know that the argument is always of the correct type and you can use a throwing cast instead, e.g. (Repeater)sender instead of (sender as Repeater).
No good reason at all, now there's covarience and contravarience I think it's fine to use a strongly typed Sender. See discussion in this question
Conventions exist only to impose consistency.
You CAN strongly type your event handlers if you wish, but ask yourself if doing so would provide any technical advantage?
You should consider that event handlers don't always need to cast the sender... most of the event handling code I've seen in actual practice don't make use of the sender parameter. It is there IF it is needed, but quite often it isn't.
I often see cases where different events on different objects will share a single common event handler, which works because that event handler isn't concerned with who the sender was.
If those delegates were strongly typed, even with clever use of generics, it would be VERY difficult to share an event handler like that. In fact, by strongly typing it you are imposing the assumption that the handlers should care what the sender is, when that isn't the practical reality.
I guess what you should be asking is why WOULD you strongly type the event handling delegates? By doing so would you be adding any significant functional advantages? Are you making the usage more "consistent"? Or are you just imposing assumptions and constraints just for the sake of strong-typing?
You say:
This leads to lots of event handling
code like:-
RepeaterItem item = sender as RepeaterItem
if (RepeaterItem != null) { /* Do some stuff */ }
Is it really lots of code?
I'd advise never to use the sender parameter to an event handler. As you've noticed, it's not statically typed. It's not necessarily the direct sender of the event, because sometimes an event is forwarded. So the same event handler may not even get the same sender object type every time it is fired. It's an unnecessary form of implicit coupling.
When you enlist with an event, at that point you must know what object the event is on, and that is what you're most likely to be interested in:
someControl.Exploded += (s, e) => someControl.RepairWindows();
And anything else specific to the event ought to be in the EventArgs-derived second parameter.
Basically the sender parameter is a bit of historical noise, best avoided.
I asked a similar question here.
It's because you can never be sure who fired the event. There is no way to restrict which types are allowed to fire a certain event.
The pattern of using EventHandler(object sender, EventArgs e) is meant to provide for all events the means of identifying the event source (sender), and providing a container for all the event's specific payload.
The advantage of this pattern is also that it allows to generate a number of different events using the same type of delegate.
As for the arguments of this default delegate...
The advantage of having a single bag for all the state you want to pass along with the event is fairly obvious, especially if there are many elements in that state.
Using object instead of a strong type allows to pass the event along, possibly to assemblies that do not have a reference to your type (in which case you may argue that they won't be able to use the sender anyway, but that's another story - they can still get the event).
In my own experience, I agree with Stephen Redd, very often the sender is not used. The only cases I've needed to identify the sender is in the case of UI handlers, with many controls sharing the same event handler (to avoid duplicating code).
I depart from his position, however, in that I see no problem defining strongly typed delegates, and generating events with strongly typed signatures, in the case where I know that the handler will never care who the sender is (indeed, often it should not have any scope into that type), and I do not want the inconvenience of stuffing state into a bag (EventArg subclass or generic) and unpacking it. If I only have 1 or 2 elements in my state, I'm OK generating that signature.
It's a matter of convenience for me: strong typing means the compiler keeps me on my toes, and it reduces the kind of branching like
Foo foo = sender as Foo;
if (foo !=null) { ... }
which does make the code look better :)
This being said, it is just my opinion. I've deviated often from the recommended pattern for events, and I have not suffered any for it. It is important to always be clear about why it is OK to deviate from it.
Good question!
.
Well, that's a good question. I think because any other type could use your delegate to declare an event, so you can't be sure that the type of the sender is really "MyType".
I tend to use a specific delegate type for each event (or a small group of similar events). The useless sender and eventargs simply clutter the api and distract from the actually relevant bits of information. Being able to "forward" events across classes isn't something I've yet to find useful - and if you're forwarding events like that, to an event handler that represents a different type of event, then being forced to wrap the event yourself and provide the appropriate parameters is little effort. Also, the forwarder tends to have a better idea of how to "convert" the event parameters than the final receiver.
In short, unless there's some pressing interop reason, dump the useless, confusing parameters.