I see how I can use the mapping file to specify a custom IUserType for any nhibernate mapped class I want.
However, I don't want to type it in every time. Is there a way to override the standard mapping table seen here?
I have Jørn Schou-Rode's IUserType implementation for storing a guid in Binary(16) in MariaDB. All I want is to enter one or two lines of code to tell Nhibernate when it sees a System.Guid to convert it to the custom "BinaryGuidType" that Schou-Rode made me. Can it be done?
If you are using Fluent NHibernate you can easily do this using Conventions. Here is how I map all strings to varchar instead of nvarchar:
public class PropertyConvention : IPropertyConvention
{
public void Apply(IPropertyInstance instance)
{
SetStringsAsAnsiStringByDefault(instance);
}
private void SetStringsAsAnsiStringByDefault(IPropertyInstance instance)
{
if (instance.Property.PropertyType == typeof(string))
{
instance.CustomType("AnsiString");
}
else if (instance.Property.PropertyType == typeof(char))
{
instance.CustomType("AnsiChar");
}
}
}
I believe the later versions of NHibernate have in-built support for conventions, but the documentation seems to be sparse. Here is an article for you to get started though: http://weblogs.asp.net/ricardoperes/nhibernate-conventions
I have a scenario , where my current interface looks like
public interface IMathematicalOperation
{
void AddInt();
}
After an year i expect the interface to be extended with AddFloat method and also expect 100 users already consuming this interface. When i extend the interface with a new method after an year i don't want these 100 classes to get changed.
So how can i tackle this situation ? Is there any design pattern available already to take care of this situation ?
Note: i understand that i can have a abstract class which implement this interface and make all the methods virtual , so that clients can inherit from this class rather than the interface and override the methods . When i add a new method only the abstract class will be changed and the clients who are interested in the method will override the behavior (minimize the change) .
Is there any other way of achieving the same result (like having a method named Add and based on certain condition it will do Float addition or Integer addition) ?
Edit 1:
The new method gets added to the interface also needs to be called automatically along with the existing methods(like chain of responsibility pattern).
There are at least two possible solution I can think of:
Derive your new interface from your old interface
public interface IMathematicalOperation
{
void AddInt();
}
public interface IFloatingPointMathematicalOperation : IMathematicalOperation
{
void AddFloat();
}
Have simply a parallel interface which contains the new method and have all classes which need the new interface derive from it
I'd suggest the second solution, since I don't understand why you would want an established interface to change.
I encountered a similar issue some time ago and found the best way was not to try and extend an existing interface, but to provide different versions of the interface with each new interface providing extra functionality. Over time I found that was not adding functionality on a regular basis, may once a year, so adding extra interfaces was never really an issue.
So, for example this is your first version of the interface:
public interface IMathematicalOperation
{
void AddInt();
}
This interface would then be implemented on a class like this:
public class MathematicalOperationImpl : IMathematicalOperation
{
public void AddInt()
{
}
}
Then when you need to add new functionality, i.e. create a version 2, you would create another interface with the same name, but with a "2" on the end:
public interface IMathematicalOperation2 : IMathematicalOperation
{
void AddFloat();
}
And the MathematicalOperationImpl would be extended to implement this new interface:
public class MathematicalOperationImpl : IMathematicalOperation, IMathematicalOperation2
{
public void AddInt()
{
}
public void AddFloat()
{
}
}
All of your new/future clients could start using the version 2 interface, but your existing clients would continue to work because they will only know about the first version of the interface.
The options provided are syntactically viable but then, as is obvious, they won't apply to any previous users.
A better option would be to use the Visitor pattern
The pattern is best understood when you think about the details of OO code
this.foo(); // is identical to
foo(this);
Remember that there is always a hidden 'this' parameter passed with every instance call.
What the visitor pattern attempts to do is generalize this behavior using Double dispatch
Let's take this a hair further
public interface MathematicalOperation
{
void addInt();
void accept(MathVisitor v);
}
public interface MathVisitor {
void visit(MathematicalOperation operation);
}
public class SquareVistor implements MathVisitor {
void visit(MathematicalOperation operation) {
operation.setValue(operation.getValue() * 2);
}
}
public abstract class AbstractMathematicalOperation implements MathematicalOperation {
public void accept(MathVisitor f) {
f.visit(this); // we are going to do 'f' on 'this'. Or think this.f();
}
}
public class MyMathOperation extends AbstractMathematicalOperation {
}
someMathOperation.visit(new SquareVisitor()); // is now functionally equivalent to
someMathOperation.square();
The best bet would be for you to roll-out your initial interface with a visitor requirements, then immediately roll-out an abstract subclass that gives this default implementation so it's cooked right in (As the above class is). Then everyone can just extend it. I think you will find this gives you the flexibility you need and leaves you will the ability to work with legacy classes.
I have a base class where all common functions are written. I many classes which override this functions by virtual keyword. Like,
public class Base
{
public virtual void sample()
{
..............
}
}
public class a : Base
{
public override sample()
{
}
}
public class implement
{
public void ToSample()
{
Base baseclass = new Base();
Switch(test)
{
case a: baseclass = a();
break;
case b: baseclass = b();
break;
}
baseclass.sample();
}
}
This perfect code for current situation but now I have more class to be assign in switch case. It is not good practice for adding huge amount of cases so I want something that automatically assign child class.
Is anybody know something to be implement ?
As stated in the comment, you can decouple the implementation by using dependency injection. Note however, that in some cases you have no choice but doing that kind of switch (e.g. when you need to create a class based on a text received in a socket). In such cases the important thing is to always keep the switch statement encapsulated in one method and make your objects rely on it (or, in other words, don't copy-and-paste it everywhere :)). The idea here is too keep your system isolated from a potentially harmful code. Of course that if you add a new class you will have to go and modify that method, however you will only have to do it in one time and in one specific place.
Another approach that I have seen (and sometimes used) is to build a mapping between values an classes. So, if your class-creation switch depends on an integer code, you basically create a mapping between codes and classes. What you are doing here is turning a "static" switch into a dynamic behavior, since you can change the mappings contents at any time and thus alter the way your program behaves. A typical implementation would be something like (sorry for the pseudocode, I'm not familiar with C#):
public class implement
{
public void ToSample()
{
class = this.mapping.valueForKey(test);
Base baseclass = new class();
baseclass.sample();
}
}
Note however that for this example to work you need reflection support, which varies according to the language you are using (again, sorry but I don't know the C# specifics).
Finally, you can also check the creational family of patterns for inspiration regarding object creation issues and some well known forms of solving them.
HTH
To show an example what is this question about:
I have currently a dilemma in PHP project I'm working on. I have in mind a method that will be used by multiple classes (UIs in this case - MVC model), but I'm not sure how to represent such methods in OO design. The first thing that came into my mind was to create a class with static functions that I'd call whenever I need them. However I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do.
To be more precise, I want to work, for example, with time. So I'll need several methods that handle time. I was thinking about creating a Time class where I'd be functions that check whether the time is in correct format etc.
Some might say that I shouldn't use class for this at all, since in PHP I can still use procedural code. But I'm more interested in answer that would enlighten me how to approach such situations in OOP / OOD.
So the actual questions are: How to represent such methods? Is static function approach good enough or should I reconsider anything else?
I would recommend creating a normal class the contains this behavior, and then let that class implement an interface extracted from the class' members.
Whenever you need to call those methods, you inject the interface (not the concrete class) into the consumer. This lets you vary the two independently of each other.
This may sound like more work, but is simply the Strategy design pattern applied.
This will also make it much easier to unit test the code, because the code is more loosely coupled.
Here's an example in C#.
Interface:
public interface ITimeMachine
{
IStopwatch CreateStopwatch();
DateTimeOffset GetNow();
}
Production implementation:
public class RealTimeMachine : ITimeMachine
{
#region ITimeMachine Members
public IStopwatch CreateStopwatch()
{
return new StopwatchAdapter();
}
public DateTimeOffset GetNow()
{
return DateTimeOffset.Now;
}
#endregion
}
and here's a consumer of the interface:
public abstract class PerformanceRecordingSession : IDisposable
{
private readonly IStopwatch watch;
protected PerformanceRecordingSession(ITimeMachine timeMachine)
{
if (timeMachine == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("timeMachine");
}
this.watch = timeMachine.CreateStopwatch();
this.watch.Start();
}
public abstract void Record(long elapsedTicks);
public virtual void StopRecording()
{
this.watch.Stop();
this.Record(this.watch.ElapsedTicks);
}
}
Although you say you want a structure for arbitrary, unrelated functions, you have given an example of a Time class, which has many related functions. So from an OO point of view you would create a Time class and have a static function getCurrentTime(), for example, which returns an instance of this class. Or you could define that the constuctors default behaviour is to return the current time, whichever you like more. Or both.
class DateTime {
public static function getNow() {
return new self();
}
public function __construct() {
$this->setDateTime('now');
}
public function setDateTime($value) {
#...
}
}
But apart from that, there is already a builtin DateTime class in PHP.
Use a class as a namespace. So yes, have a static class.
class Time {
public static function getCurrentTime() {
return time() + 42;
}
}
I don't do PHP, but from an OO point of view, placing these sorts of utility methods as static methods is fine. If they are completely reusable in nature, consider placing them in a utils class.
I don't know why I started thinking about this, but now I can't seem to stop.
In C# - and probably a lot of other languages, I remember that Delphi used to let you do this too - it's legal to write this syntax:
class WeirdClass
{
private void Hello(string name)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, {0}!", name);
}
public string Name
{
set { Hello(name); }
}
}
In other words, the property has a setter but no getter, it's write-only.
I guess I can't think of any reason why this should be illegal, but I've never actually seen it in the wild, and I've seen some pretty brilliant/horrifying code in the wild. It seems like a code smell; it seems like the compiler should be giving me a warning:
CS83417: Property 'Name' appears to be completely useless and stupid. Bad programmer! Consider replacing with a method.
But maybe I just haven't been doing this long enough, or have been working in too narrow a field to see any examples of the effective use of such a construct.
Are there real-life examples of write-only properties that either cannot be replaced by straight method calls or would become less intuitive?
My first reaction to this question was: "What about the java.util.Random#setSeed method?"
I think that write-only properties are useful in several scenarios. For example, when you don't want to expose the internal representation (encapsulation), while allowing to change the state of the object. java.util.Random is a very good example of such design.
Code Analysis (aka FxCop) does give you a diagnostic:
CA1044 : Microsoft.Design : Because
property 'WeirdClass.Name' is write-only,
either add a property getter with an
accessibility that is greater than or
equal to its setter or convert this
property into a method.
Write-only properties are actually quite useful, and I use them frequently. It's all about encapsulation -- restricting access to an object's components. You often need to provide one or more components to a class that it needs to use internally, but there's no reason to make them accessible to other classes. Doing so just makes your class more confusing ("do I use this getter or this method?"), and more likely that your class can be tampered with or have its real purpose bypassed.
See "Why getter and setter methods are evil" for an interesting discussion of this. I'm not quite as hardcore about it as the writer of the article, but I think it's a good thing to think about. I typically do use setters but rarely use getters.
I have code similar to the following in an XNA project. As you can see, Scale is write-only, it is useful and (reasonably) intuitive and a read property (get) would not make sense for it. Sure it could be replaced with a method, but I like the syntax.
public class MyGraphicalObject
{
public double ScaleX { get; set; }
public double ScaleY { get; set; }
public double ScaleZ { get; set; }
public double Scale { set { ScaleX = ScaleY = ScaleZ = value; } }
// more...
}
One use for a write-only property is to support setter dependency injection, which is typically used for optional parameters.
Let's say I had a class:
public class WhizbangService {
public WhizbangProvider Provider { set; private get; }
}
The WhizbangProvider is not intended to be accessed by the outside world. I'd never want to interact with service.Provider, it's too complex. I need a class like WhizbangService to act as a facade. Yet with the setter, I can do something like this:
service.Provider = new FireworksShow();
service.Start();
And the service starts a fireworks display. Or maybe you'd rather see a water and light show:
service.Stop();
service.Provider = new FountainDisplay(new StringOfLights(), 20, UnitOfTime.Seconds);
service.Start();
And so on....
This becomes especially useful if the property is defined in a base class. If you chose construction injection for this property, you'd need to write a constructor overload in any derived class.
public abstract class DisplayService {
public WhizbangProvider Provider { set; private get; }
}
public class WhizbangService : DisplayService { }
Here, the alternative with constructor injection is:
public abstract class DisplayService {
public WhizbangProvider Provider;
protected DisplayService(WhizbangProvider provider) {
Provider = provider ?? new DefaultProvider();
}
}
public class WhizbangService : DisplayService {
public WhizbangService(WhizbangProvider provider)
: base(provider)
{ }
}
This approach is messier in my opinion, because you need to some of the internal workings of the class, specifically, that if you pass null to the constructor, you'll get a reasonable default.
In MVP pattern it is common to write a property with a setter on the view (no need for a getter) - whenever the presenter sets it content the property will use that value to update some UI element.
See here for a small demonstration:
public partial class ShowMeTheTime : Page, ICurrentTimeView
{
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
CurrentTimePresenter presenter = new CurrentTimePresenter(this);
presenter.InitView();
}
public DateTime CurrentTime
{
set { lblCurrentTime.Text = value.ToString(); }
}
}
The presenter InitView method simply sets the property's value:
public void InitView()
{
view.CurrentTime = DateTime.Now;
}
Making something write-only is usefulwhenever you're not supposed to read what you write.
For example, when drawing things onto the screen (this is precisely what the Desktop Window Manager does in Windows):
You can certainly draw to a screen, but you should never need to read back the data (let alone expect to get the same design as before).
Now, whether write-only properties are useful (as opposed to methods), I'm not sure how often they're used. I suppose you could imagine a situation with a "BackgroundColor" property, where writing to it sets the background color of the screen, but reading makes no sense (necessarily).
So I'm not sure about that part, but in general I just wanted to point out that there are use cases for situations in which you only write data, and never read it.
Although the .NET design guidelines recommend using a method ("SetMyWriteOnlyParameter") instead of a write-only property, I find write-only properties useful when creating linked objects from a serialised representation (from a database).
Our application represents oil-field production systems. We have the system as a whole (the "Model" object) and various Reservoir, Well, Node, Group etc objects.
The Model is created and read from database first - the other objects need to know which Model they belong to. However, the Model needs to know which lower object represents the Sales total. It makes sense for this information to be stored a Model property. If we do not want to have to do two reads of Model information, we need to be able to read the name of Sales object before its creation. Then, subsequently, we set the "SalesObject" variable to point to the actual object (so that, e.g., any change by the user of the name of this object does not cause problems)
We prefer to use a write-only property - 'SalesObjectName = "TopNode"' - rather than a method - 'SetSalesObjectName("TopNode") - because it seems to us that the latter suggests that the SalesObject exists.
This is a minor point, but enough to make us want to use a Write-Only property.
As far as I'm concerned, they don't. Every time I've used a write-only property as a quick hack I have later come to regret it. Usually I end up with a constructor or a full property.
Of course I'm trying to prove a negative, so maybe there is something I'm missing.
I can't stop thinking about this, either. I have a use case for a "write-only" property. I can't see good way out of it.
I want to construct a C# attribute that derives from AuthorizeAttribute for an ASP.NET MVC app. I have a service (say, IStore) that returns information that helps decide if the current user should be authorized. Constructor Injection won't work, becuase
public AllowedAttribute: AuthorizeAttribute
{
public AllowedAttribute(IStore store) {...}
private IStore Store { get; set; }
...
}
makes store a positional attribute parameter, but IStore is not a valid attribute parameter type, and the compiler won't build code that is annotated with it. I am forced to fall back on Property Setter Injection.
public AllowedAttribute: AuthorizeAttribute
{
[Inject] public IStore Store { private get; set; }
...
}
Along with all the other bad things about Property Setter instead of Constructor Injection, the service is a write-only property. Bad enough that I have to expose the setter to clients that shouldn't need to know about the implementation detail. It wouldn't do anybody any favors to let clients see the getter, too.
I think that the benefit of Dependency Injection trumps the guidelines against write-only properties for this scenario, unless I am missing something.
I just came across that situation when writing a program that reads data from a JSON database (Firebase). It uses Newtonsoft's Json.NET to populate the objects. The data are read-only, i.e., once loaded they won't change. Also, the objects are only deserialized and won't be serialized again. There may be better ways, but this solution just looks reasonable for me.
using Newtonsoft.Json;
// ...
public class SomeDatabaseClass
{
// JSON object contains a date-time field as string
[JsonProperty("expiration")]
public string ExpirationString
{
set
{
// Needs a custom parser to handle special date-time formats
Expiration = Resources.CustomParseDateTime(value);
}
}
// But this is what the program will effectively use.
// DateTime.MaxValue is just a default value
[JsonIgnore]
public DateTime Expiration { get; private set; } = DateTime.MaxValue;
// ...
}
No, I can' imagine any case where they can't be replaced, though there might people who consider them to be more readable.
Hypothetical case:
CommunicationDevice.Response = "Hello, World"
instead of
CommunicationDevice.SendResponse("Hello, World")
The major job would be to perform IO side-effects or validation.
Interestingly, VB .NET even got it's own keyword for this weird kind of property ;)
Public WriteOnly Property Foo() As Integer
Set(value As Integer)
' ... '
End Set
End Property
even though many "write-only" properties from outside actually have a private getter.
I recently worked on an application that handled passwords. (Note that I'm not claiming that the following is a good idea; I'm just describing what I did.)
I had a class, HashingPassword, which contained a password. The constructor took a password as an argument and stored it in a private attribute. Given one of these objects, you could either acquire a salted hash for the password, or check the password against a given salted hash. There was, of course, no way to retrieve the password from a HashingPassword object.
So then I had some other object, I don't remember what it was; let's pretend it was a password-protected banana. The Banana class had a set-only property called Password, which created a HashingPassword from the given value and stored it in a private attribute of Banana. Since the password attribute of HashingPassword was private, there was no way to write a getter for this property.
So why did I have a set-only property called Password instead of a method called SetPassword? Because it made sense. The effect was, in fact, to set the password of the Banana, and if I wanted to set the password of a Banana object, I would expect to do that by setting a property, not by calling a method.
Using a method called SetPassword wouldn't have had any major disadvantages. But I don't see any significant advantages, either.
I know this has been here for a long time, but I came across it and have a valid (imho) use-case:
When you post parameters to a webapi call from ajax, you can simply try to fill out the parameters class' properties and include validation or whatsoever.
public int MyFancyWepapiMethod([FromBody]CallParams p) {
return p.MyIntPropertyForAjax.HasValue ? p.MyIntPropertyForAjax.Value : 42;
}
public class CallParams
{
public int? MyIntPropertyForAjax;
public object TryMyIntPropertyForAjax
{
set
{
try { MyIntPropertyForAjax = Convert.ToInt32(value); }
catch { MyIntPropertyForAjax = null; }
}
}
}
On JavaScript side you can simply fill out the parameters including validation:
var callparameter = {
TryMyIntPropertyForAjax = 23
}
which is safe in this example, but if you handle userinput it might be not sure that you have a valid intvalue or something similar.