I want to store a number of unique variables (objects) in a class like so:
//Notice that each object has unique attributes passed to it
public static Entity SomeEntity01, SomeEntity02, SomeEntity03;
SomeEntity01 = new Entity(some, values);
SomeEntity02 = new Entity(some, new, values);
SomeEntity03 = new Entity(some, other, values);
I wish to access these variables in the class like this:
MyClass.SomeEntity01
I can do this with instantiation, but it would obfuscate the code with useless instances. I can't do this ordinarily because classes don't allow object instantiation outside of methods (from what I can tell).
If possible, how can I store and access variables (specifically objects) in a class without using instantiation or static methods?
You can initialize static fields in a static constructor:
public static class MyClass
{
public static Entity SomeEntity01, SomeEntity02, SomeEntity03;
static MyClass() // static constructor
{
SomeEntity01 = new Entity(some, values);
SomeEntity02 = new Entity(some, new, values);
SomeEntity03 = new Entity(some, other, values);
}
}
Related
I have been following following coreclr for a little while and I am new to programming. My question is why do they pass interfaces into Dictionary's especially the key value?
//
// Allocate a new Dictionary containing a copy of the old values, plus the new value. We have to do this manually to
// minimize allocations of IEnumerators, etc.
//
Dictionary newValues = new Dictionary(current.m_localValues.Count + (hadPreviousValue ? 0 : 1));
My understanding is that interface is to implemented by a class. Once implemented it can call/use functions or store data in the classes properties/ variables. I am missing some understanding of interfaces and their use cases but I do not know what that it.
Why do you instantiate a variable to an interface or pass an interface into a parameter? My understanding is you will then have an instance of that variable which still can't hold values nor change state through methods.
Let me explain.
Interface is contract. It just contains method without implementation. Now it may possible that that interface is being implemented by any number of class.
public interface IEntity { int Id {get;set;} }
public class Student : IEntity { public int Id {get;set;} // Interface Property }
public class Teacher : IEntity { public int Id {get;set;} // Interface Property }
Dictionary<IEntity,object> obj = new Dictionary<IEntity,object>(); Student s = new Student(); Teacher t = new Teacher(); obj.Add(s,any object); obj.Add(t,any object);
This is because of interface that your dictionary can hold reference of both type ( Student and Teacher).
In .NET when any object is created it is uniquely identify by GetHashCode() method. // You can find more detail on this on MSDN.
Also Dictionary not means that keys must be only primitive type. This is the reason it is good if you have more than one key ( Like composite key in Database) so it allow you to identify uniquely based on your custom implementation.
Now second Generic.
public class PersonInfo<T> where T : IEntity
{
public string Name {get;set;}
public T Entity {get;set;}
}
PersonInfo<Student> student = new PersonInfo<Student>();
student.T = new Student();
student.Name = "";
PersonInfo<Teacher> Teacher = new PersonInfo<Teacher>();
teacher.T= new Teacher();
teacher.Name = "";
When you have interface. It not actually interface. You always have a reference to object with that interface. And that object is the one responsible for comparison in dictionary
The benefit is not difference from using class as a key. Dictionary can be used as list to iterate KeyValuePair to take key to do some operation. But using interface means you can store various type of class with same interface instead of just one type. Which is decoupled and more flexible
I came across a lot of code in our company codebase with the following structure
class Base
{
public Base (var a, var b)
{
base_a = a;
base_b = b;
}
var base_a;
var base_b;
}
class Derived:Base
{
publc Derived (var a,b,c,d): base (a,d)
{
der_c = c;
der_d = d;
}
var der_c;
var der_d;
var der_e;
}
class Ref
{
Base _ref;
public Ref( var a,b,c,d)
{
_ref = new Derived (a,b,c,d)
}
public void method( )
{
_ref.der_e = 444; // won't compile
}
}
What is the correct way to initialize der_e ? What is the advantages of having a reference of base class and using an object derived class for _ref ? Just the fact that using a base class reference can hold multiple derived class objects ? If that's the case, should all the member variables of derived class be initialized during construction itself (like this: _ref = new Derived (a,b,c,d) ). What if I want to initialize _ref.der_e later in a method ? I know I can do this (var cast_ref = _ref as Derived; cast_ref.der_e = 444) but this look doesn't seem to the best practice. What is the idea of having such a structure and what is the correct of initializing a member of a derived class object after it has been constructed ?
Those are too many questions in a single post.
What is the correct way to initialize der_e ?
For initializing der_e you will have to have Reference of Derived class as it knows about the der_e property and not Base class.
What is the advantages of having a reference of base class and using
an object derived class for _ref ?
Yes that's called Polymorphism which is the essence of Object Oriented Programming. It allows us to hold various concrete implementations without knowing about the actual implementation.
If that's the case, should all the member variables of derived class
be initialized during construction itself (like this: _ref = new
Derived (a,b,c,d) )
There is no such rule. It depends on your scenario. If the values are not meant to be changed after the creation of the object and the values are known before hand during construction of the object then they should be initialized during construction.
Again if there are various scenarios like sometimes values are known and sometimes not then there can be Overloaded Constructors, which take different arguments.
What if I want to initialize _ref.der_e later in a method ?
That is perfectly fine, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. The question is not a concrete one but an abstract one in which it is difficult to comment on what you are trying to achieve.
I know I can do this (var cast_ref = _ref as Derived; cast_ref.der_e =
444) but this look doesn't seem to the best practice.
I am sharing some Java code which is similar to C# as I am from Java background
//This class knows about Base and nothing about the Derived class
class UserOfBase{
Base ref;
//Constructor of UserOfBase gets passed an instance of Base
public UserOfBase(Base bInstance){
this.ref = bInstance;
}
//Now this class should not cast it into Derived class as that would not be a polymorphic behavior. In that case you have got your design wrong.
public void someMethod(){
Derived derivedRef = (Derived)ref; //This should not happen here
}
}
I am sharing some references which would help you with this, as I think the answer can be very long to explain.
Factory Pattern
Dependency Injection
Head First Design Patterns
Posts on SO regarding polymorphism
You can create a constructor in your derived class and map the objects or create an extension method like this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void FillPropertiesFromBaseClass<T1, T2>(this T2 drivedClass, T1 baseClass) where T2 : T1
{
//Get the list of properties available in base class
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo[] properties = typeof(T1).GetProperties();
properties.ToList().ForEach(property =>
{
//Check whether that property is present in derived class
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo isPresent = drivedClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name);
if (isPresent != null && property.CanWrite)
{
//If present get the value and map it
object value = baseClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name).GetValue(baseClass, null);
drivedClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name).SetValue(drivedClass, value, null);
}
});
}
}
for example when you have to class like this:
public class Fruit {
public float Sugar { get; set; }
public int Size { get; set; }
}
public class Apple : Fruit {
public int NumberOfWorms { get; set; }
}
you can initialize derived class by this code:
//constructor
public Apple(Fruit fruit)
{
this.FillPropertiesFromBaseClass(fruit);
}
I have the impression that closures run as the actual class being called (instead of the implementing super class) and thus break when some variables are not visible (e.g. private in the super class).
For example
package comp.ds.GenericTest2
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class ClosureScopeC {
private List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>()
private int accessThisPrivateVariable = 0;
void add(String a) {
list.add(a)
println("before ${accessThisPrivateVariable} ${this.class.name}")
// do something with a closure
list.each {String it ->
if (it == a) {
// accessThisPrivateVariable belongs to ClosureScopeC
accessThisPrivateVariable++
}
}
println("after ${accessThisPrivateVariable}")
}
}
// this works fine
a = new ClosureScopeC()
a.add("abc")
a.add("abc")
// child class
class ClosureScopeD extends ClosureScopeC {
void doSomething(String obj) {
this.add(obj)
}
}
b = new ClosureScopeD()
// THIS THROWS groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: accessThisPrivateVariable for class: comp.ds.GenericTest2.ClosureScopeD
b.doSomething("abc")
The last line throws a MissingPropertyException: the child class calls the "add" method of the super class, which executes the "each" closure, which uses the "accessThisPrivateVariable".
I am new to groovy, so I think there must be an easy way to do this, because otherwise it seems that closures completely break the encapsulation of the private implementation done in the super class ... this seems to be a very common need (super class implementation referencing its own private variables)
I am using groovy 2.1.3
I found this to be a good reference describing how Groovy variable scopes work and applies to your situation: Closure in groovy cannot use private field when called from extending class
From the above link, I realized that since you have declared accessThisPrivateVariable as private, Groovy would not auto-generate a getter/setter for the variable. Remember, even in Java, private variables are not accessible directly by sub-classes.
Changing your code to explicitly add the getter/setters, solved the issue:
package com.test
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class ClosureScopeC {
private List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>()
private int accessThisPrivateVariable = 0;
int getAccessThisPrivateVariable() { accessThisPrivateVariable }
void setAccessThisPrivateVariable(int value ){this.accessThisPrivateVariable = value}
void add(String a) {
list.add(a)
println("before ${accessThisPrivateVariable} ${this.class.name}")
// do something with a closure
list.each {String it ->
if (it == a) {
// accessThisPrivateVariable belongs to ClosureScopeC
accessThisPrivateVariable++
}
}
println("after ${accessThisPrivateVariable}")
}
}
// this works fine
a = new ClosureScopeC()
a.add("abc")
a.add("abc")
// child class
class ClosureScopeD extends ClosureScopeC {
void doSomething(String obj) {
super.add(obj)
}
}
b = new ClosureScopeD()
b.doSomething("abc")
There is a simpler way, just make the access modifier (should rename the property really) to protected, so the sub-class has access to the property.. problem solved.
protected int accessThisProtectedVariable
To clarify on your statement of concern that Groovy possibly has broken encapsulation: rest assured it hasn't.
By declaring a field as private, Groovy is preserving encapsulation by intentionally suspending automatic generation of the public getter/setter. Once private, you are now responsible and in full control of how or if there is a way for sub-classes (protected) or all classes of objects (public) to gain access to the field by explicitly adding methods - if that makes sense.
Remember that by convention, Groovy ALWAYS calls a getter or setter when your codes references the field. So, a statement like:
def f = obj.someField
will actually invoke the obj.getSomeField() method.
Likewise:
obj.someField = 5
will invoke the obj.setSomeField(5) method.
Is it possible to convert ExpandoObject to anonymously typed object?
Currently I have HtmlHelper extension that can take HTML attributes as a parameter. The problem is that my extension also needs to add some HTML attributes so I've use ExpandoObject to merge my attributes and attributes that user passes to the function using htmlAttributes parameter. Now I need to pass merged HTML attributes to original HtmlHelper function, and when I send ExpandoObject, nothing happens. So I guess that I need to convert ExpandoObject to anonymously typed object or something similar - any suggestions are welcome.
I don't think that you need to deal with expandos to achieve your goal:
public static class HtmlExtensions
{
public static IHtmlString MyHelper(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper, object htmlAttributes)
{
var builder = new TagBuilder("div");
// define the custom attributes. Of course this dictionary
// could be dynamically built at runtime instead of statically
// initialized as in my example:
builder.MergeAttribute("data-myattribute1", "value1");
builder.MergeAttribute("data-myattribute2", "value2");
// now merge them with the user attributes
// (pass "true" if you want to overwrite existing attributes):
builder.MergeAttributes(new RouteValueDictionary(htmlAttributes), false);
builder.SetInnerText("hello world");
return new HtmlString(builder.ToString());
}
}
and if you wanted to call some of the existing helpers, then a simple foreach loop could do the job:
public static class HtmlExtensions
{
public static IHtmlString MyHelper(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper, object htmlAttributes)
{
// define the custom attributes. Of course this dictionary
// could be dynamically built at runtime instead of statically
// initialized as in my example:
var myAttributes = new Dictionary<string, object>
{
{ "data-myattribute1", "value1" },
{ "data-myattribute2", "value2" }
};
var attributes = new RouteValueDictionary(htmlAttributes);
// now merge them with the user attributes
foreach (var item in attributes)
{
// remove this test if you want to overwrite existing keys
if (!myAttributes.ContainsKey(item.Key))
{
myAttributes[item.Key] = item.Value;
}
}
return htmlHelper.ActionLink("click me", "someaction", null, myAttributes);
}
}
Is it possible to convert ExpandoObject to anonymously typed object?
Only if you generate the anonymous type yourself at execution time.
Anonymous types are normally created by the compiler, at compile-time, and baked into your assembly like any other type. They're not dynamic in any sense. So, you'd have to use CodeDOM or something similar to generate the same kind of code that's used for anonymous type... that's not going to be fun.
I think it's rather more likely that someone else will have created some MVC helper classes which know about ExpandoObject (or can just work with IDictionary<string, object>).
I'm creating a button in ActionScript by extending flash.display.SimpleButton
The button doesn't behave as expected, however, when I declare certain variables in the constructor which also happen to exist as properties in the SimpleButton class. They appear to conflict..
Why is this? Shouldn't the locally declared variables be allowed to co-exist with similarly named class properites?
Snippet below might better illustrate the issue:
public class MyButton extends SimpleButton{
public function MyButton(/*..*/){
var upState:ButtonDisplayState = new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/));
var downState:ButtonDisplayState = new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/);
var overState:ButtonDisplayState = new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/);
var hitTestState:ButtonDisplayState = new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/);
super(upState, overState, downState, hitTestState);
}
}
The API docs are here (look for upState for example): http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLangRefV3/flash/display/SimpleButton.html#upState
Thanks,
Aodh.
You can't redeclare already existing variables, local or not. The only place where you can do something like this is method parameters, where you can have same parameter names as local / class variables.
Why don't you just pass in those states to the constructor directly like:
super(new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/)), new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/)), new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/)), new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/)));
or alternatively just set them directly after calling super(); like this:
upState = new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/));
downState = new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/);
overState = new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/);
hitTestState = new ButtonDisplayState(/*..*/);