OOP concept: is it possible to update the class of an instantiated object? - vb.net

Question

I am trying to write a simple program that should allow a user to save and display sets of heterogeneous, but somehow related data. For clarity sake, I will use a representative example of vehicles. The program flow is like this:
The program creates a Garage object, which is basically a class that can contain a list of vehicles objects
Then the users creates Vehicles objects, these Vehicles each have a property, lets say License Plate Nr. Once created, the Vehicle object get added to a list within the Garage object
--Later on--, the user can specify that a given Vehicle object is in fact a Car object or a Truck object (thus giving access to some specific attributes such as Number of seats for the Car, or Cargo weight for the truck)
At first sight, this might look like an OOP textbook question involving a base class and inheritance, but the problem is more subtle because at the object creation time (and until the user decides to give more info), the computer doesn't know the exact Vehicle type.
Hence my question: how would you proceed to implement this program flow? Is OOP the way to go?
Just to give an initial answer, here is what I've came up until now. There is only one Vehicle class and the various properties/values are handled by the main program (not the class) through a dictionary. However, I'm pretty sure that there must be a more elegant solution (I'm developing using VB.net):
Public Class Garage
Public GarageAdress As String
Private _ListGarageVehicles As New List(Of Vehicles)
Public Sub AddVehicle(Vehicle As Vehicles)
_ListGarageVehicles.Add(Vehicle)
End Sub
End Class
Public Class Vehicles
Public LicensePlateNumber As String
Public Enum VehicleTypes
Generic = 0
Car = 1
Truck = 2
End Enum
Public VehicleType As VehicleTypes
Public DictVehicleProperties As New Dictionary(Of String, String)
End Class
NOTE that in the example above the public/private modifiers do not necessarily reflect the original code

Answer 1

Let's first distinguish between the set of answers which one can ask about an object in the garage (its attributes) from the set of answers to those questions( its state).
If you are simply looking at a scenario where the set of answers changes, then a simple State Pattern applies. The attributes remain constant, and state changes. All object instantiations remain of a single type with constant attributes.
if you are looking at the more complicated situation where the available attributes for an object in the garage changes, one uses the Decorator pattern. However, I don't think this quite fits your scenario either. The Decorator pattern is for scenarios where there is a tractable number of attributes, but the number of possible combinations is potentially exponential because there is no restriction of which go with which.
The scenario that I think best handles your situation is that the object is actually undefined until identified, with only a Proxy (represented by the vehicle key) created initially, Once the object is completely identified, which it seems occurs all at once, it's full object is instantiated.
It is possible that you might want a Decorator sitting on top of the Proxy, but that might not be necessary either.

Answer 2

--Later on--, the user can specify that a given Vehicle object is in fact a Car object or a Truck object
You are dangerously close to asking for unrestricted downcasting as a feature. This is just not possible in managed code, the CLR provides hard guarantees that illegal downcasts are never possible. It raises the InvalidCastException when you try anyway.
Somewhat more concrete, if the original object was created as a Vehicle then there is no way that you can ever interpret or access that object as though it is a Truck. A Truck has, say, a Cargo property that Vehicle doesn't have. In fact, Vehicle doesn't even have the storage for Cargo. Re-interpreting a Vehicle as a Truck will give it a complete garbage value for Cargo. And much worse, writing the Cargo property will corrupt memory.
Unrestricted downcasting is possible in some languages, like C and C++. Particularly in C it is almost inevitable, void* is the "object class" of C. But these languages are also pretty famous for writing code that crashes at runtime. An illegal downcast is an excellent and common way to induce such a crash. The heap corruption this causes is extremely difficult to diagnose, the crash doesn't happen until much later, far removed from where the original damage was done.
You use the standard Factory pattern to create instances of a specific class that have a desired set of properties. Upcasting to the base class is always valid. Such a factory will return a reference of type Vehicle for example, even though it created a Truck object. Downcasting it later to a Truck will be valid.

Answer 3

Object Oriented Programming works best when you try to model realistic objects, rather than 'magical' objects that do things that don't make sense.
In the real world you can't have a car that is a vague blob, but suddenly becomes a Pickup truck. Thus it makes little sense to model your system this way, and you will run into various problems that cause you to go back to the "magic" again and again.
One can think of the compiler and the runtime environment as a sort of "pocket universe" and one can think of certain rules enforced by the compiler as "Laws of physics" that apply in that universe. In some cases you bend these laws, given certain compensations, but in general you shouldn't try to do this as it can cause huge rifts in the space-time continuum (ie, you can corrupt the internal state of the program).
Instead, I would model it this way. You can have a list of "License Plate" objects, and when you want to "create" a Pickup Truck, you use a Factory class, passing in the License Plate object and it will create a Pickup Truck that uses that license object.
Remember, that objects often contain other objects. A license plate is an object in and of itself, so why not treat it as such? Since you appear to have no real tie between the ambiguous "vehicle" and the license plate, this makes more sense.

Answer 4

My understanding is : You are trying to achieve in VB.net something you can actually dynamically do in JavaScript and its constructors...
I don't know if you can dynamically create Methods, Functions, Events or Properties in VB.net like :
Public Module SampleMembers
Public _PaxNum As Integer = 0
Public _CargoAmount As Integer = 0
Public Function GetPassengerNumbers() As Integer
Return _PaxNum
End Function
Public Function GetCargoAmount() As Integer
Return _CargoAmount
End Function
End Module
And then, declare in your application a basic object like :
Dim MyVehicle As Object
Later on, during runtime, dynamically add members to your vehicle object like :
Public Sub ConvertBaseVehicleToCar(ByRef CurrentVehicle As Object)
' ...
Object.AddMember(SampleMember._PaxNum, CurrentVehicle)
Object.AddMember(SampleMember.GetPassengerNumber(), CurrentVehicle)
' Where Object would have a magical Constructor Modyfier...
' That would be GREAT... of course
End Sub
But you can't do that in VB.net if I'm not mistaken
If it was just about datas...
I would use :
Public Class Vehicle
Private _PropertiesList As New SortedList(Of String, String)
Public Function AddProperty(ByVal PropertyName As String, ByVal PropertyValue As String) As Boolean
If _PropertiesList.ContainsKey(PropertyName) Then
_PropertiesList.Item(PropertyName) = PropertyValue
Return False ' Property replaced !
Else
_PropertiesList.Add(PropertyName, PropertyValue)
Return Property ' New Property added !
End If
End Function
Public Function RemoveProperty(ByVal PropertyName) As Boolean
If _PropertiesList.ContainsKey(PropertyName) Then
_PropertiesList.Remove(PropertyName)
Return True ' Property actually removed !
Else
Return False ' No property with that name !
End If
End Function
Public Function GetPropertiesList() As List(Of String)
Dim NewList As New List(Of String)
Dim CurrentProperty As String
For Each CurrentProperty In _PropertiesList.Keys
NewList.Add(CurrentProperty)
Next
Return NewList
End Function
Public Function GetProperty(ByVal PropertyName As String) As String
If _PropertiesList.ContainsKey(PropertyName) Then
Return _PropertiesList.Item(PropertyName)
Else
Return ""
' Or whatever explicit code of your choice
' like Return "N/A" or Return "#"
End If
End Function
' I would replace this latest function by
Public Property Item(ByVal PropertyName As String) As String
' ...
End Property
' ...
' And the Constructor
Public Sub New(ByVal VehicleType As String)
InitializeType(VehicleType)
End Sub
' With its default Properties like :
Private Sub InitializeType(ByVal ProposedType As String)
ProposedType = ProposedType.Trim().ToUpper()
Select Case ProposedType
Case "CAR":
Item("Type") = "CAR"
Case "TRUCK":
Item("Type") = "TRUCK"
Case "MINIVAN":
Item("Type") = "MINIVAN"
End Select
End Sub
' And add a FINAL ReadOnly Property
Public ReadOnly Property VehicleType() As String
Get
Return Item("Type")
End Get
End Property
End Class
Now, MyVehicle could be anything, a car, a truck, a plane, even PlanetEarth...
Still, I CAN'T mask or add methods, functions, properties upon runtime. My properties are all of type "String"
MyCar.Item("NumberOfWheels") = "6"
' ^^ I'll have to cast this to Integer before using it...
MessageBox.Show(SumOfWheels(MyListOfVehicles).ToString())
' Where :
Public Function SumOfWheels(ByVal ListOfVehicles As List(Of Vehicles)) As Integer
Dim CurrentVehicle As Vehicle
Dim CurrentWheels As Integer
Dim TotalWheels As Integer = 0
For Each CurrentVehicle In ListOfVehicles
If Integer.TryParse(CurrentVehicle.Item("NumberOfWheels"), CurrentWheels)
TotalWheels = TotalWheels + CurrentWheels
End If
Next
Return TotalWheels
End Function
However, I could add a sort of virtual type modyfier : The initial ReadOnly Property VehicleType()
' ...
Public Property VehicleType() As String
' The Getter is the same, but the setter is a litte bit different :
Set(ByVal NewType As String)
InitializeType(NewType) ' Simple ? No ! I'll have to edit the Method...
End Set
End Property
Private Sub InitializeType(ByVal ProposedType As String)
ProposedType = ProposedType.Trim().ToUpper()
Select Case ProposedType
Case "CAR":
Item("Type") = "CAR"
RemoveProperty("CargoHold")
Item("Drivers") = "1"
Case "TRUCK":
Item("Type") = "TRUCK"
RemoveProperty("PaxSeats") ' Well, you actually can have one.. or two..
Item("Drivers") = "1"
Case "MINIVAN":
Item("Type") = "MINIVAN"
Item("Drivers") = "1"
Case "MOTORBIKE":
Item("Type") = "MOTORBIKE"
RemoveProperty("CargoHold")
Item("Drivers") = "1"
Item("PaxSeats") = "1"
Item("NumberOfWheels") = "2"
Case "JETLINER":
Item("Type") = "JETLINER"
Item("Drivers") = "2"
Case "VINTAGEJETLINER":
Item("Type") = "VINTAGEJETLINER"
Item("Drivers") = "3"
End Select
End Sub
' ...
Anyway, I'll have to write codes for specific routines using several vehicles in my Garage. This would be members in my Garage Class. Each time I want to do specific things for a given set of vehicles, I'll had to check what type of vehicle it is and select the correct path of code to run.........
That would become very tricky if you want to have a bunch of sub models of vehicles...
' VEHICLE>MINIVAN
' VEHICLE>MINIVAN>CITROEN
' VEHICLE>MINIVAN>CITROEN>3CV
' VEHICLE>MINIVAN>CITROEN>3CV>BASIC
' VEHICLE>MINIVAN>CITROEN>3CV>COLLECTOR
' VEHICLE>MINIVAN>CITROEN>3CV>DEADHULK
But at least, you can have an usefull Function that retrives ALL vehicles with a specific property in your Garage :
Public Function GetVehicleUsingProperty(ByVal PropertyName As String, ByVal PropertyValue As String) As List(Of Vehicle)
' And a better one :
Public Function GetVehicleUsingProperty(ByVal PropertiesParam As SortedList(Of String, String)) As List(Of Vehicle)
' ... :P
Just the way I see things. Hope someone else could give a better way to implement all of this ?

Answer 5

I would be inclined to have a "Vehicle" base class that can be created normally (not abstract) with the basic properties that you do know. Including the VehicleType you defined set to "Generic" by default.
Create each specific type for each sub type. Defining the correct properties in a ridgid format to enforce good code.
In the base type create a function to Clone Vehicle Properties to a passed in Object. Eg.
Public sub CloneTo(byval OtherVehicle as Vehicle)
When a "Generic" vehicle needs to be more specific create the new child type, pass it to the routine to clone the existing information, and replace the old type with the new one in the Garage Collection.
You would need to evaluate the Child Type for each item in the garage collection to determine the available extended properties, but I think a good solid full tree list of children can minimize this work if all the correct levels are in place (the lower levels would be most commonly accessed and if any properties that can be are placed always at the highest level in the tree) Eg. Vehicle - Car - Sedan. PassengerCapacity for exampel is really a property of a Vehicle.