I can't find an answer to my question so I'm asking a new one.
I have an object where I want to fill it's properties from another class in the same solution. But the object should expose read-only properties only so the outside-caller can't see nor access the setter (cause there is no setter).
What is the best way to fill the internal backing variables from the same solution? I know I could do it in the constructor but I want to be able to set the variables after creating the object.
Sorry for my weird explaination, maybe a bit of code could help.
This is what I'm doing now:
Public Class ReadonlyObject
Protected Friend Sub New()
End Sub
'Could use this, but don't want to...
Protected Friend Sub New(foo As String)
End Sub
Friend _foo As String
Public ReadOnly Property Foo As String
Get
Return _foo
End Get
End Property
End Class
Public Class FillReadonlyObject
Private Sub DoSomeHeavyWork()
Dim roObject As New ReadonlyObject
roObject._foo = "bar"
'Could use this, but don't want to...want to access properties directly.
Dim roObject2 As New ReadonlyObject("bar")
End Sub
End Class
With this, the ReadonlyObject's properties are correctly exposed as readonly but I'm afraid it's bad practice.
I've seen implementations like this:
Public Class ReadonlyObject
Protected Friend Sub New()
End Sub
Private _foo As String
Public Property Foo As String
Get
Return _foo
End Get
Friend Set(value As String)
_foo = value
End Set
End Property
End Class
Public Class FillReadonlyObject
Private Sub DoSomeHeavyWork()
Dim roObject As New ReadonlyObject
roObject.Foo = "bar"
End Sub
End Class
This works, but exposes the property with a setter. It's not accessible, but it's visible and I don't want that :)
So maybe it's only a cosmetic thing but I think it's nice to tell the caller (or at least intellisense) the property is strictly read-only.
Thanks, Jan
If you want to explicitly declare the property as read-only, but then still have a way to set it after it is constructed, then all you need to do is create your own setter method rather than using the one automatically created for you but the property. For instance:
Public Class ReadonlyObject
Protected Friend Sub New()
End Sub
Private _foo As String
Public ReadOnly Property Foo As String
Get
Return _foo
End Get
End Property
Friend Sub SetFoo(value As String)
_foo = value
End Sub
End Class
Public Class FillReadonlyObject
Private Sub DoSomeHeavyWork()
Dim roObject As New ReadonlyObject
roObject.SetFoo("bar")
End Sub
End Class
Or, you could create two properties, like this:
Public Class ReadonlyObject
Protected Friend Sub New()
End Sub
Public ReadOnly Property Foo As String
Get
Return HiddenFoo
End Get
End Property
Friend Property HiddenFoo As String
End Class
Public Class FillReadonlyObject
Private Sub DoSomeHeavyWork()
Dim roObject As New ReadonlyObject
roObject.HiddenFoo = "bar"
End Sub
End Class
Related
I am currently working on a multi thread project. The idea is to implement the threat security into my own custom controls. Now I want to override properties of the DataGridViewRowCollection such as the DataGridView.Rows.Add() and DataGridView.Rows.Remove(row as DataGridViewRow) with my code for the threat security.
My idea was to use an own DataGridViewRowCollection XRowCollection instead of the basic DataGridViewRowCollection. When I try to override the Rows property, I get the compiler message:
"Public Overrides ReadOnly Property Rows As XRowCollection" and
"Public Shadows Property Rows As
System.Windows.Forms.DataGridViewRowCollection" cannot overload each
other because they differ only by return types
I would be thankful for any solution or any alternate ideas to implement the threat secure code directly in my cutsom contorl.
Public Class XDataGridView
Inherits System.Windows.Forms.DataGridView
Private _Rows As XRowCollection
Public Overrides ReadOnly Property Rows As XRowCollection
Get
If _Rows Is Nothing Then
_Rows = New NoxRowCollection(Me)
End If
Return _Rows
End Get
End Property
End Class
Public Class XRowCollection
Inherits DataGridViewRowCollection
Public Sub New(dataGridView As XDataGridView)
MyBase.New(CType(dataGridView, DataGridView))
End Sub
Private Delegate Sub RowsRemoveCallback(DataGridViewRow As System.Windows.Forms.DataGridViewRow)
Public Shadows Sub Remove(DataGridViewRow As System.Windows.Forms.DataGridViewRow)
If MyBase.DataGridView.InvokeRequired Then
Dim d As New RowsRemoveCallback(AddressOf Remove)
MyBase.DataGridView.Invoke(d, New Object() {DataGridViewRow})
Else
Me.DataGridView.Rows.Remove(DataGridViewRow)
End If
End Sub
End Class
So this is how I would design my Lazy class (From this SO):
Public NotInheritable Class MySingleton
Private Shared ReadOnly _instance As New Lazy(Of MySingleton)(Function() New _
MySingleton(), System.Threading.LazyThreadSafetyMode.ExecutionAndPublication)
Private Sub New()
End Sub
Public Shared ReadOnly Property Instance() As MySingleton
Get
Return _instance.Value
End Get
End Property
Private _MyString As String
Public Property MyString As String
Get
Return _MyString
End Get
Set(value As String)
_MyString = value
End Set
End Property
End Class
To access the _MyString value, I do the following:
Dim MyString = MySingleton.Instance.MyString
In fact, I always have to type the ".Instance."
Does it have any disadvantage if I design the Property the following way:
Public Property MyString As String
Get
Return instance._MyString
End Get
Set(value As String)
instance._MyString = value
End Set
End Property
So I can access it without always writing the ".Instance."
Dim MyString = MySingleton.MyString
Yes you can (of course with Public Shared Property), but you are losing some of the benefits from singleton over static classes.
Lets say you have another class MyWorker
Public Class MyWorker
Public Sub Work(instance as MySingleton)
Dim value as String = instance.MyString
' Do something ...
End Sub
End Class
I would not do this. This may not look like a big issue, but on the long run you have a tight coupling in your code base and a hard time mocking your class for unit testing, one of the reasons for using singeltons over static classes in the first place.
I often use this approach, when accessing Singelton values mutiple times:
Dim instance as MySingelton = MySingelton.Value
If instance.MyString = "something" Then
instance.MyString = "something else"
End If
much cleaner approach.
I have been trying to do this for a long time but I can't find anything anywhere. I think I am not searching it as it should...
A little example:
Class MainClass
Property ExampleProperty As New ExamplePropertyClass
Private Class ExamplePropertyClass
Sub DoSomething()
End Sub
End Class
End Class
In the previous code the ExamplePropertyClass is used as an property of the MainClass.
There is always an error that says I can't expose a private class as propery.
But how is it possible to make only the property "Visible", I mean The user who is going to use the code should only use the property and not the class, how can the class be not inherited or visible?
What is property actually syntactic sugar for setter and getter.So mostly it is default public
You declare class as private. So it will be invisible outside. Then there is conflict if it be not visible then how people will know to assign and get that object without knowing its type. So that type should be public and visible
dim m as new MainClass()
m.ExampleProperty=? ' What is ExampleProperty ?int , object. So it should not be unknown
Another way you claim that you are not going to use that property outside.This way it is ok to have private class inside.
'Explicitly make property to be used only within class
Private Property ExampleProperty As ExamplePropertyClass
You do this with interfaces:
Public Interface IDoesSomething
Sub DoSomething()
End Interface
Public Class MainClass
Public Sub New()
m_example = New InternalClass
End Sub
Private m_example As IDoesSomething
Public ReadOnly Property Example() As IDoesSomething
Get
Return m_example
End Get
End Property
Private Class InternalClass
Implements IDoesSomething
Public Sub DoSomething() Implements IDoesSomething.DoSomething
End Sub
End Class
End Class
Public Class Class1
Private names As List(Of String)
Private _class2 As New Class2
Public Sub AddName(ByVal name As String)
names.Add(name)
_class2.Add()
End Sub
Public ReadOnly Property AddAge(ByVal name As String) As Class2
Get
_class2.index = names.IndexOf(name)
Return _class2
End Get
End Property
Public Sub Clear()
names.Clear()
_class2.Clear()
End Sub
Public Class Class2
Private _age As List(Of Integer)
Protected Friend index As Integer
Public Property Age() As Integer
Get
Return _age(index)
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
_age(index) = value
End Set
End Property
Public Sub Add()
_age.Add(0)
End Sub
Public Sub Clear()
_age.Clear()
End Sub
End Class
End Class
How can I hide ,Sub Clear and Sub Add on class2, so they'll only be visible on class1, like;
Public Sub Clear()
names.Clear()
_class2.Clear() '<<<<<<<
End Sub
I want they do not be visible on Sub Main(), like they are below.
Sub Main()
Dim person As New Class1
person.AddAge("kid").Clear() '<<<<<<
person.AddAge("kid").Add() '<<<<<<
End Sub
If I put Protected, I class1 cannot access it. If I put Protected Friend, Sub Main() can still access them. Thanks for your help and time.
Used -Hans Passant- comment.
"Trust in .NET follows assembly boundaries. If you get two classes in one assembly then there are two programmers that know how to find each other if there's a problem. The only way to get what you want is to put these classes in a separate class library project. Which then lets you use Friend. And whomever writes that Main method doesn't have to be friendly."
I have two classes:
class class2
inherits class1
public sub modify()
'modify property of class1
end sub
end class
How can I modify class1 in a sub in class2?
You just call it. Example:
Public Class class1
Private _Value As String = String.Empty
Property Value() As String
Get
Return _Value
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
_Value = value
End Set
End Property
End Class
Public Class class2
Inherits class1
Public Sub modify()
Value = "modified"
End Sub
End Class
And to show it works:
Dim c2 As New class2
c2.modify()
MessageBox.Show(c2.Value)
You are asking about properties, note that only protected and public properties are visible to inherited classes.
You need the MyBase keyword when you are overriding an existing function in the parent class. Other protected or public properties or functions can be accessed regulary without any special keyword.
One tip I wanted to add to the above comments regarding accessing base class info is where you have a base class without a default contructor or want to use a specific constructor This is a good opportunity to use Mybase. You have to call the constructor before any additional actions take place in this scenario.
Public Class MyClass
Inherits baseClass
Public Sub New()
mybase.new("Oranges")
End Sub
End Class
Public Class baseClass
Private _someVariable as String
Public Sub New(byval passedString as string)
_someVariable = passedString
End Sub
End Class