I have been seeing some odd behaviour in an entity that I have for which I created a partial class to override the ToSting Method and provide some basic property setting when a new instance of that entity is created (for example I might set an order date to 'Now') in a constructor.
This odd behaviour led me to look closely at the partial class and I was surprised to see that even when a set of pre existing records was being retrieved the constructor was being called for each retrieved record.
below is a very simple example of what I might have:
Partial Public Class Product
Public Sub New()
CostPrice = 0.0
ListPrice = 0.0
End Sub
Public Overrides Function ToString() As String
Return ProductDescription
End Function
End Class
I have two questions that arise from this:
1) is this normal behaviour in the Entity Framework if you add a partial class to which you add a constructor?
2) if not then I must assume that I have done something wrong, so what would be the correct way to
override the constructor to do things similar to the example I mentioned above?
Thanks for any insights that you can give me.
This is using EF 5.0 in a vb project
think to the sequence of events leading to the retrieval of an entity from the database. Basically it should be something like:
query the database
for each row of the query result give an entity
The giving is then as follow for each retrieved row:
create a new instance of the retrieved entity
populate this new instance with the value of the row
Well with each instance creation, the constructor is called.
I think you are mixing:
instance initialization where you "allocate" the object, and
business initialization where you enforce business logic
both may be done, at least partially, in the constructor.
new is always called when a class is first instantiated and if you do not explicitly declare a constructor then a default constructor will be created by the compiler.
Unless the class is static, classes without constructors are given a public default constructor by the C# compiler in order to enable class instantiation.
When defining POCO classes for Entity Framework the class must have a default constructor and EF will always call this default constructor whether you have explicitly defined it or the compiler did it for you.
If for any reason you have need to pass anything into the class when it is instantiated you can use the ObjectContext.ObjectMaterialized event.
Related
Is there any way to get the value of an objects' private attribute without a getter. Modifying the class is not permitted in any shape or form.
Please find below an example class with a private attribute.
CLASS counter DEFINITION.
PUBLIC SECTION.
METHODS: set IMPORTING value(set_value) TYPE i.
PRIVATE SECTION.
DATA count TYPE i.
ENDCLASS. "counter DEFINITION
CLASS counter IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD set.
count = set_value.
ENDMETHOD. "set
ENDCLASS. "counter IMPLEMENTATION
How can I get the value of count? Inheriting from counter will not work because count is private, not protected.
Unfortunately not, I have tried this myself in many different ways none of which work:
Having a standard super class - the super class cannot access the
private attributes of subclasses dynamically
Making a subclass will never work since it can only access protected
Attempting to use the unit test framework doesn't work. I tried to
call the kernel modules that allow access to private data but to no
avail.
You are basically flat out of luck. There is one obscure option though depending on the class you are trying to access. Some classes have interfaces specified as friends and if you implement that interface you can access their private data (the ALV on 7.20 is like this) but unfortunately this will only work in a few limited cases.
Runtime type services are the abap's equivalent of reflection.
They allow You nearly to scan every object, and mostly even modify it at runtime. As far as i know, the visibility of attributes does not matter. But be careful.
And read about the various classes, because there are many, each specified to work on a special type of dataopbject ( structs, objects, etc)
http://wiki.scn.sap.com/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=42965
You could make a sub class, re-implement the setter and set a second variable, then call the parent method. Be aware of the ramifications of having two variables holding the same stuff... Please see vwegert's comments and see if you really want to because it's generally not a great idea and it breaks the rules of OO.
CLASS counter_sub DEFINITION INHERITING FROM counter.
PUBLIC SECTION.
data count2 type i read-only.
METHODS: set REDEFINITION.
ENDCLASS. "counter_sub DEFINITION
CLASS counter_sub IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD set.
count2 = set_value.
super->set( set_value ).
ENDMETHOD. "set
ENDCLASS. "counter_sub IMPLEMENTATION
I'm (somewhat) new to DI and am trying to understand how/why it's used in the codebase I am maintaining. I have found a series of classes that map data from stored procedure calls to domain objects. For example:
Public Sub New(domainFactory As IDomainFactory)
_domainFactory = domainFactory
End Sub
Protected Overrides Function MapFromRow(row As DataRow) As ISomeDomainObject
Dim domainObject = _domainFactory.CreateSomeDomainObject()
' Populate the object
domainObject.ID = CType(row("id"), Integer)
domainObject.StartDate = CType(row("date"), Date)
domainObject.Active = CType(row("enabled"), Boolean)
Return domainObject
End Function
The IDomainFactory is injected with Spring.Net. It's implementation simply has a series of methods that return new instances of the various domain objects. eg:
Public Function CreateSomeDomainObject() As ISomeDomainObject
Return New SomeDomainObject()
End Function
All of the above code strikes me as worse than useless. It's hard to follow and does nothing of value. Additionally, as far as I can tell it's a misuse of DI as it's not really intended for local variables. Furthermore, we don't need more than one implementation of the domain objects, we don't do any unit testing and if we did we still wouldn't mock the domain objects. As you can see from the above code, any changes to the domain object would be the result of changes to the SP, which would mean the MapFromRow method would have to be edited anyway.
That said, should I rip this nonsense out or is it doing something amazingly awesome and I'm missing it?
The idea behind dependency injection is to make a class (or another piece of code) independent on a specific implementation of an interface. The class outlined above does not know which class implements IDomainFactory. A concrete implementation is injected through its constructor and later used by the method MapFromRow. The domain factory returns an implementation of ISomeDomainObject which is also unknown.
This allows you supplement another implementation of these interfaces without having to change the class shown above. This is very practical for unit tests. Let's assume that you have an interface IDatabase that defines a method GetCustomerByID. It is difficult to test code that uses this method, since it depends on specific customer records in the database. Now you can inject a dummy database class that returns customers generated by code that does not access a physical database. Such a dummy class is often called a mock object.
See Dependency injection on Wikipedia.
I'm working with vb.net, wcf, wpf and I'm refactoring working code with the hope of being able to reduce some amount of redundancy. I have a bunch of methods that get called in several places throughout the code that only have a slight variation from each other and I would like to replace them with a single method instead.
Specifically, each of the redundant methods process an 1-d array that contain different objects I have created. There are several of these different object types each with different signatures but they have all have a "name" and "Id" property. (Also these objects don't have a shared base class but I could add that if needed.) Each of the redundant methods deal with a different one of the object types.
To refactor the code I would like to pass any of the different object arrays to a single new method that could access the "name" and "id" properties. I'm trying to write this new method in a fashion that wouldn't require me to update it if I created more objects down the road.
I've done some reading on Delegates and Generic Classes but I can't really figure out how this fits in. It would almost be as if I wanted to create a generic class that could handle each of my object types but then somehow also access the "name" and "id" propeties of the different object types.
Any help you can provide would be appretiated. Also, please keep in mind this project is written in VB.net.
Thanks
Mike
It sounds like having your object implement a common interface or have a shared base class would be best. Interfaces give you the most flexibility down the road if you ever need to pass a class to this method that must derive from some other class that does not implement the interface. However, a base class that implements the interface may also be useful just to reduce the duplicate declarations of these properties.
Public Interface IThingThatHasNameAndId 'good name not included
ReadOnly Property Name As String
ReadOnly Property Id As Integer
End Interface
Once you have the interface, you can then pass arrays of types implementing the interface as IEnumerable(Of IThingThatHasNameAndId) or make a generic method taking T() and constrain T to the interface.
Make a base class with the Name and ID properties, then you can make a method that takes in any class that derrives from that class.
Public Function TestFunction(Of t As YourBaseClass)(Byval obj As t) As Boolean
If obj.Name = "Some Name" AndAlso obj.ID = 1 Then
Return True
Else
Return False
End If
End Function
Sorry if this is a bit random, but is it good practice to give all fields of a class a value when the class is instanciated? I'm just wondering if its better practice to have a constuctor that takes no parameters and gives all the fields default values, or whether fields that have values should be assigned and others left alone until required?
I hope that makes sense,
Becky
I don't know if it makes a performance difference or not, but any fields for which you have explicit default values I personally prefer to assign them in the declarations, as so:
Public Class MyClass
Private pIsDirty As Boolean = False
Private pDated as Date = Now()
End Class
Keep in mind most "simple" types like boolean, integer, etc. auto-default and don't NEED to be initialized, but I show that here as example and sometimes for clarity you want it anyway. Additionally since any classes I write are all for internal use (we don't sell any code objects for public use) I can be assured to the consumer of my classes. So I generally just write a minimal constructor (if a non-default one is needed) that only takes the primary fields, and spin up any additional values with the new With syntax in VB as so:
Dim myObj = New SomeClass() With { .Prop1 = "value", .Prop2 = Now() }
Your class' constructor should accept enough parameters to be in an usable state.
You can get the same functionality you seem to be looking for by using Optional Parameters in your constructor.
That way you can set by name just the properties that you have to, and leave the rest with default values until you need to change them.
Sub Notify(ByVal Company As String, Optional ByVal Office As String = "QJZ")
If Office = "QJZ" Then
Debug.WriteLine("Office not supplied -- notifying Headquarters")
Office = "Headquarters"
End If
' Code to notify headquarters or specified office.
End Sub
Remember that optional parameters must be after all non optional parameters.
Ideal practice is to have an object in a usable state as soon as the constructor returns. This reduces errors whereby a partially 'ready' object is inadvertently used.
It depends. How do you intend to use the class? What is the purpose of the class? (i.e. is it an entity class for database modeling or some other class)
I always make my entity classes with nullable properties that are all null when the class is instanced with a constructor that takes no parameter. Then when I call .Load I know all properties reflect the database.
Adding a constructor that calls .Load and assigns all of the properties known values from the database would be a feasible route also.
If you are not referring to an entity modeling class then it really depends on your usage of the class.
My personal preference is to assign all properties a known value (from constructor parameters) and therefore the class is in a known - neutral state.
Is setX() method name appropriate for only for setting class property X?
For instance, I have a class where the output is a string of an html table. Before you can you can call getTable, you have to call setTable(), which just looks at a other properties and decides how to construct the table. It doesn't actually directly set any class property -- only causes the property to be set. When it's called, the class will construct strHtmlTable, but you can't specify it.
So, calling it setTable breaks the convention of get and set being interfaces for class properties.
Is there another naming convention for this kind of method?
Edit: in this particular class, there are at least two ( and in total 8 optional ) other methods that must be called before the class knows everything it needs to to construct the table. I chose to have the data set as separate methods rather than clutter up the __construct() with 8 optional parameters which I'll never remember the order of.
I would recommend something like generateTable() instead of setTable(). This provides a situation where the name of the method clearly denotes what it does.
I would probably still use a setTable() method to actually set the property, though. Ideally, you could open the possibility of setting a previously defined table for further flexibility.
Yes, setX() is primarily used for setting a field X, though setX() may have some additional code that needs to run in addition to a direct assignment to a field. Using it for something else may be misleading to other developers.
I would definitely recommend against having a public setTable() and would say that setTable() could be omitted or just an unused private method depending upon your requirements.
It sounds like the activity to generate the table is more of a view of other properties on the object, so you might consider moving that to a private method on the object like generateHtmlTable(). This could be done during construction (and upon updates to the object) so that any subsequent calls to getTable() will return the the appropriate HTML.