I have wondered about the appropriateness of reflection in C# code. For example I have written a function which iterates through the properties of a given source object and creates a new instance of a specified type, then copies the values of properties with the same name from one to the other. I created this to copy data from one auto-generated LINQ object to another in order to get around the lack of inheritance from multiple tables in LINQ.
However, I can't help but think code like this is really 'cheating', i.e. rather than using using the provided language constructs to achieve a given end it allows you to circumvent them.
To what degree is this sort of code acceptable? What are the risks? What are legitimate uses of this approach?
Sometimes using reflection can be a bit of a hack, but a lot of the time it's simply the most fantastic code tool.
Look at the .Net property grid - anyone who's used Visual Studio will be familiar with it. You can point it at any object and it it will produce a simple property editor. That uses reflection, in fact most of VS's toolbox does.
Look at unit tests - they're loaded by reflection (at least in NUnit and MSTest).
Reflection allows dynamic-style behaviour from static languages.
The one thing it really needs is duck typing - the C# compiler already supports this: you can foreach anything that looks like IEnumerable, whether it implements the interface or not. You can use the C#3 collection syntax on any class that has a method called Add.
Use reflection wherever you need dynamic-style behaviour - for instance you have a collection of objects and you want to check the same property on each.
The risks are similar for dynamic types - compile time exceptions become run time ones. You code is not as 'safe' and you have to react accordingly.
The .Net reflection code is very quick, but not as fast as the explicit call would have been.
I agree, it gives me the it works but it feels like a hack feeling. I try to avoid reflection whenever possible. I have been burned many times after refactoring code which had reflection in it. Code compiles fine, tests even run, but under special circumstances (which the tests didn't cover) the program blows up run-time because of my refactoring in one of the objects the reflection code poked into.
Example 1: Reflection in OR mapper, you change the name or the type of the property in your object model: Blows up run-time.
Example 2: You are in a SOA shop. Web Services are complete decoupled (or so you think). They have their own set of generated proxy classes, but in the mapping you decide to save some time and you do this:
ExternalColor c = (ExternalColor)Enum.Parse(typeof(ExternalColor),
internalColor.ToString());
Under the covers this is also reflection but done by the .net framework itself. Now what happens if you decide to rename InternalColor.Grey to InternalColor.Gray? Everything looks ok, it builds fine, and even runs fine.. until the day some stupid user decides to use the color Gray... at which point the mapper will blow up.
Reflection is a wonderful tool that I could not live without. It can make programming much easier and faster.
For instance, I use reflection in my ORM layer to be able to assign properties with column values from tables. If it wasn't for reflection I have had to create a copy class for each table/class mapping.
As for the external color exception above. The problem is not Enum.Parse, but that the coder didnt not catch the proper exception. Since a string is parsed, the coder should always assume that the string can contain an incorrect value.
The same problem applies to all advanced programming in .Net. "With great power, comes great responsibility". Using reflection gives you much power. But make sure that you know how to use it properly. There are dozens of examples on the web.
It may be just me, but the way I'd get into this is by creating a code generator - using reflection at runtime is a bit costly and untyped. Creating classes that would get generated according to your latest code and copy everything in a strongly typed manner would mean that you will catch these errors at build-time.
For instance, a generated class may look like this:
static class AtoBCopier
{
public static B Copy(A item)
{
return new B() { Prop1 = item.Prop1, Prop2 = item.Prop2 };
}
}
If either class doesn't have the properties or their types change, the code doesn't compile. Plus, there's a huge improvement in times.
I recently used reflection in C# for finding implementations of a specific interface. I had written a simple batch-style interpreter that looked up "actions" for each step of the computation based on the class name. Reflecting the current namespace then pops up the right implementation of my IStep inteface that can be Execute()ed. This way, adding new "actions" is as easy as creating a new derived class - no need to add it to a registry, or even worse: forgetting to add it to a registry...
Reflection makes it very easy to implement plugin architectures where plugin DLLs are automatically loaded at runtime (not explicitly linked at compile time).
These can be scanned for classes that implement/extend relevant interfaces/classes. Reflection can then be used to instantiate instances of these on demand.
Related
I have a set of strings like this:
System.Int32
string
bool[]
List<MyType.MyNestedType>
Dictionary<MyType.MyEnum, List<object>>
I would like to test if those strings are actually source code representations of valid types.
I'm in an environment, that doesn't support Roslyn and incorporating any sort of parser would be difficult. This is why I've tried using System.Type.GetType(string) to figure this out.
However, I'm going down a dirty road, because there are so many edge cases, where I need to modify the input string to represent an AssemblyQualifiedString. E.g. nested type "MyType.MyNestedType" needs to be "MyType+MyNestedType" and generics also have to be figured out the hard way.
Is there any helper method which does this kind of checking in .Net 2.0? I'm working in the Unity game engine, and we don't have any means to switch our system to a more sophisticated environment with available parsers.
Clarification
My company has developed a code generation system in Unity, which is not easily changed at this point. The one thing I need to add to it, is the ability to get a list of fields defined in a class (via reflection) and then separate them based on whether they are part of the default runtime assembly or if they are enclosed within #if UNITY_EDITOR preprocessor directives. When those are set, I basically want to handle those fields differently, but reflection alone can't tell me. Therefore I have decided to open my script files, look through the text for such define regions and then check if a field is declared within in them, and if true, put it in a separate FieldInfo[] array.
The one thing fixed and not changeable: All script will be inspected via reflection and a collection of FieldInfo is used to generate new source code elsewhere. I just need to separate that collection into individual ones for runtime vs editor assembly.
Custom types and nested generics are probably the hard part.
Can't you just have a "equivalency map to fully qualified name" or a few translation rules for all custom types ?
I guess you know by advance what you will encounter.
Or maybe run it on opposite way : at startup, scan your assembly(s) and for each class contained inside, generates the equivalent name "as it's supposed to appear" in your input file from the fully qualified name in GetType() format ?
For custom types of other assemblies, please note that you have to do things such as calling Assembly.LoadFile() or pass assembly name in second parameter to GetType() before to be able to load them.
See here for example : Resolve Type from Class Name in a Different Assembly
Maybe this answer could also help : How to parse C# generic type names?
Could you please detail what is the final purpose of project ? The problem is a bit surprising, especially for a unity project. Is it because you used some kind of weird serialization to persist state of some of your objects ?
This answer is more a few recommandations and questions to help you to clarify the needs than a definitive answer, but it can't hold in a single comment, and I think it provide useful informations
I need to work on an application that consists of two major parts:
The business logic part with specific business classes (e.g. Book, Library, Author, ...)
A generic part that can show Books, Libraries, ... in data grids, map them to a database, ...).
The generic part uses reflection to get the data out of the business classes without the need to write specific data-grid or database logic in the business classes. This works fine and allows us to add new business classes (e.g. LibraryMember) without the need to adjust the data grid and database logic.
However, over the years, code was added to the business classes that also makes use of reflection to get things done in the business classes. E.g. if the Author of a Book is changed, observers are called to tell the Author itself that it should add this book to its collection of books written by him (Author.Books). In these observers, not only the instances are passed, but also information that is directly derived from the reflection (the FieldInfo is added to the observer call so that the caller knows that the field "Author" of the book is changed).
I can clearly see advantages in using reflection in these generic modules (like the data grid or database interface), but it seems to me that using reflection in the business classes is a bad idea. After all, shouldn't the application work without relying on reflection as much as possible? Or is the use of reflection the 'normal way of working' in the 21st century?
Is it good practice to use reflection in your business logic?
EDIT: Some clarification on the remark of Kirk:
Imagine that Author implements an observer on Book.
Book calls all its observers whenever some field of Book changes (like Title, Year, #Pages, Author, ...). The 'FieldInfo' of the changed field is passed in the observer.
The Author-observer then uses this FieldInfo to decide whether it is interested in this change. In this case, if FieldInfo is for the field Author of Book, the Author-Observer will update its own vector of Books.
The main danger with Reflection is that the flexibility can escalate into disorganized, unmaintainable code, particularly if more junior devs are used to make changes, who may not fully understand the Reflection code or are so enamored of it that they use it to solve every problem, even when simpler tools would suffice.
My observation has been that over-generalization leads to over-complication. It gets worse when the actual boundary cases turn out to not be accommodated by the generalized design, requiring hacks to fit in the new features on schedule, transmuting flexibility into complexity.
I avoid using reflection. Yes, it makes your program more flexible. But this flexibility comes at a high price: There is no compile-time checking of field names or types or whatever information you're collecting through reflection.
Like many things, it depends on what you're doing. If the nature of your logic is that you NEVER compare the field names (or whatever) found to a constant value, then using reflection is probably a good thing. But if you use reflection to find field names, and then loop through them searching for the fields named "Author" and "Title", you've just created a more-complex simulation of an object with two named fields. And what if you search for "Author" when the field is actually called "AuthorName", or you intend to search for "Author" and accidentally type "Auhtor"? Now you have errors that won't show up until runtime instead of being flagged at compile time.
With hard-coded field names, your IDE can tell you every place that a certain field is used. With reflection ... not so easy to tell. Maybe you can do a text search on the name, but if field names are passed around as variables, it can get very difficult.
I'm working on a system now where the original authors loved reflection and similar techniques. There are all sorts of places where they need to create an instance of a class and instead of just saying "new" and the class, they create a token that they look up in a table to get the class name. What does this gain? Yes, we could change the table to map that token to a different name. And this gains us ... what? When was the last time that you said, "Oh, every place that my program creates an instance of Customer, I want to change to create an instance of NewKindOfCustomer." If you have changes to a class, you change the class, not create a new class but keep the old one around for nostalgia.
To take a similar issue, I make a regular practice of building data entry screens on the fly by asking the database for a list of field names, types, and sizes, and then laying it out from there. This gives me the advantage of using the same program for all the simpler data entry screens -- just pass in the table name as a parameter -- and if a field is added or deleted, zero code change is required. But this only works as long as I don't care what the fields are. Once I start having validations or side effects specific to this screen, the system is more trouble than it's worth, and I'm better off to fall back to more explicit coding.
Based on your edit, it sounds like you are using reflection purely as a mechanism for identifying fields. This is as opposed to dynamic behavior such as looking up the fields, which should be avoided when possible (since such lookups usually use strings which ruin static type safety). Using FieldInfo to provide an identifier for a field is fairly harmless, though it does expose some internals (the info class) in a way that is not entirely ideal.
I tend not to use reflection where i can help it. by using interfaces and coding against these i can do a lot of things that some would use reflection for.
But im a big fan of if it works, it works.
Also by using reflection you probably have something that can adapt fairly easily.
Ie the only objection most would have is fairly religious ... and if your performance is fine and the code is maintainable and clear .... who cares?
Edit: based on your edit i would indeed use interfaces to achieve what you want. Unless i misunderstand you.
I think it is a good idea to stay away from Reflection when possible, but dont be afraid to resort to it when it provides a better or more flexible solution to your problem. The performance hit for anything but tight loop operations is likely to be minimal in the overall scheme of an application or Web Form request.
Just a good article to share about reflection -
http://www.simple-talk.com/dotnet/.net-framework/a-defense-of-reflection-in-.net/
I tend to use interfaces in my business layer and leave the reflection to my presentation layer. This is not an absolute but rather a guideline.
I know in Ruby can add and modify method of class dynamically in run time. what about other language? what is C# ,can in this language modify or add some method and ... in run time and dynamically?
I think you are looking for prototype inheritance. A list of languages is mentioned in the same wikipedia page.
There is a similar question on SO which you can look up.
Yes, in C# you can add methods at runtime through reflection and the Emitter object.
In C# 4.0 you can even do it in plain C# code with the Expando object. This is arguably closer to the Ruby way (it's practically a carbon copy if I remember correctly) and a lot easier to use.
Edit: All of this applies to all .NET languages, including VB.Net and F#.
The whole point of static type systems like C#'s is that all functionality defined for a particular type is known (and checked) at compile-time.
If you write
foo.jump(42);
the compiler verifies that whatever type foo has, it supports an operation called jump taking an integer parameter.
Recently, C# got the possibility of having dynamically checked objects through the dynamic type, which basically allows what you described in a very limited context, but nevertheless, the overall language is statically typed.
So what's left are dynamic languages like Ruby, where method existence is just checked at run-time (or call-time).
I think JavaScript can change so called prototypes to add methods to objects and basically achive the same thing as Ruby.
Python excels at this operation - here are bunch of examples: Python: changing methods and attributes at runtime
Lisp's object system is also quite dynamic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System
"CLOS is dynamic, meaning that not only the contents, but also the structure of its objects can be modified at runtime. CLOS supports changing class definitions on-the-fly (even when instances of the class in question already exist) as well as changing the class membership of a given instance through the change-class operator. CLOS also allows one to add, redefine and remove methods at runtime."
in C# 4 you have dynamic object which you can add/modify at run time.
Is there a concept in C# of class definition and implementation similar to what you find in C++?
I prefer to keep my class definitions simple by removing most, if no every, implementations details (it depends on several factors as you may know, but generally I move towards leaving most member implementation details outside the class definition). This has the benefit of giving me a bird's eye view of the class and its functionality.
However in C# it seems I'm forced to define my member functions at the point of declaration. Can this be avoided, or circumvent some way?
During my apprenticeship of C#, this is one aspect that is bothering me. Classes, especially complex ones, become increasingly harder to read.
This is really a case of needing to step back and see the bigger picture. Visual studio has many, many tools to help you write and manipulate your code, from outlining, #regions, class view, class diagrams, the Code Definition Window and many more.
C# isn't C++, if you try to make it so then you'll trip over yourself and no-one else will be able to read your code.
A day spent learning to use the Visual Studio tools will repay the investment many times over in terms of productivity and you'll soon wonder how you ever lived with that C++ way of doing things.
Update in response to comments
I have long since stopped regarding my code as simple text files. I regard code as an organic thing and I find that allowing myself to rely on a feature-rich IDE lets me move up and down levels of abstraction more easily and enhances my productivity no end. I suppose that could be a personal trait and perhaps it is not for everyone; I have a very 'visual' mind and I work best when I can see things in pictures.
That said, a clever IDE is not an excuse for poor style. There are best practices for writing "clean code" that don't require an smart IDE. One of the principles of clean code is to keep the definition of something near its use and I think that could be extended to cover declaration and definition. Personally, I think that separating the declaration and definition makes the code less clear. If you are finding that you get monster classes that are hard to understand, then that might be a sign that you're violating the Single Responsibility Principle.
The reason for separate definition and declaration in c/C++ is because C++ uses a single pass compiler, where forward references cannot be resolved later, unlike C# and its two-pass compiler which can happily find references regardless of the order of declaration. This difference stems from the different design philosphies of the compilers: C/C++ considers each source file to be a unit of compilation, whereas in C# the entire project is considered to be the unit of compilation. I suppose when you are used to working in the C/C++ way then separating the declaration and definition can appear to be a desirable element of style, but I personally believe that keeping declaration and use (or in this case declaration and definition) enhances, rather then reduces, readability. I used to be a C programmer myself until I started using C# in 2001. I always loved C and thought it's way of doing things was the 'bees knees'. These days when I read C/C++ code I think it looks absolutely horrendous and I can't believe we used to put up with working that way. It's all a matter of what you are used to, I suppose.
If you're using Visual Studio, you can take advantage of the Class View. You can also use the expand/collapse features of the source code editor.
In the improbable case that your tools don't help, you can always write a quick utility that will summarize the class for you.
If the class has been compiled, you can use Reflector to view the class, too.
No, there is no concept of implementation and header files in C# like you find in C/C++. The closest you can come to this is to use an interface, but the interface can only define the public members of your class. You would then end up with a 1-to-1 mapping of classes and interfaces, which really isn't the intent for how interfaces are to be used.
You could get a similar result by defining an interface for each of your classes which they then implement.
It sounds like you're referring to interfaces. In c#, you can define all of your member functions in an interface, and then implement them in another class.
In C# you could fake it with partial classes and partial members to a point, however, forward declarations and prototypes go the way of the dodo bird with your newer languages. Class View, Class Diagrams, Intellisense, et al, all help to remove the potential need for those "features".
Define an interface.
Then it's nice to be able to automatically implement the interface using a nice code assist tool.
If you find that a class is hard to read or difficult to understand, that's often a sign that the class is trying to do too much. Instead of trying to duplicate C++'s separation of declarations and definitions, consider refactoring the troublesome class into several classes so that each class has less responsibility.
Whenever it's possible or desirable, I'll go with the previous responses and define an interface. but it's not always appropriate.
alternatively, you can work around this "problem" by using some static code inspection tools. Resharper's "File Structure" window will give you exactly what you want. you can also use the built in "Class View" from visual studio. but I prefer the former.
The prototyping that I guess you are referring to does not really exist in C#. Defining interfaces as others have suggested will give you a point where you have declarations of your methods collected, but it's not the same thing as prototypes, and I am not so sure that it will help you in making your implementation classes easier to read.
C# is not C++, and should probably not be treated as C++.
Not sure what you mean by your classes continue to grow and become hard to read. Do you mean you want a header file like view of a class's members? If so, like John suggested, can't you just collapse the implementation so you don't have to see it?
If you don't want every class to implement a certain thing, then interfaces are probably the way to go (like others are saying).
But as a side thought, if your classes themselves get more and more complex as a your write the program, perhaps it's more of a design issue than a language problem? I think a class should have one responsibility and not take on more and more responsibilities as the program grows, rather the number of classes and how old classes are used should grow and get more complex as you continue to develop your software?
There are two remedies for this to make it more C++-ish:
Create an interface file that declares all method signatures and properties
Implement that interface in a class across multiple files by using the partial modifier on the class definitions
Edits:
// File: ICppLikeInterface.cs
public interface ICppLikeInterface
{
...
}
// File: CppLikeImplementation1.cs
public partial class CppLikeImplementation : ICppLikeInterface
{
...
}
// File: CppLikeImplementation2.cs
public partial class CppLikeImplementation : ICppLikeInterface
{
...
}
The C++ way of separating interface into a header file is mostly (I think) due to an early design decision when C was created to allow fast, incremental compilations during the "old days", as the compiler throws away any meta data, contrary to Smalltalk. This is not a matter with C# (nor Java) where tens of thousands of lines compiles within seconds on recent hardware (C++ still doesn't)
When I attempt to use dotfuscate on my application, I get an application error when I run it.
Dotfuscator (and all obfuscators) are typically safe to run on an application, but they do occasionally cause problems. Without specific details of your problem, it's difficult to diagnose.
However, one common problem with obfuscators is when you mix them with reflection. Since you're changing the type names, but not strings, any time you try to reflect on objects with a specific string name, and use the reflection namespace to construct objects, you'll likely have problems.
Most of the problem I have encountered with obfuscation revolve around types that can't have their name changed, because something needs to reflect on them (your code or the runtime).
for example if you have a class that is being used as a web service proxy, you can't safely obfuscate the class name:
public class MyWebServiceProxy : SoapHttpClientProtocol
{
}
Also some obfuscators can not handle generic methods and classes.
The trick is you need to find these types and prevent the obfuscater from renaming them. This is done with the Obfuscation attribute:
[global::System.Reflection.Obfuscation(Exclude=true, Feature="renaming")]
Another thing that can be a problem with obfuscators is serialization using BinaryFormatter, since it changes the field names. I have some users who use protobuf-net for serialization on their obfuscated code for this reason.