I've got a Registry class and there are a few Registry values that I want to access from within that Registry class. (There is a bit of a calculation with these values so I thought I'd just put all that code right in the Registry Class itself).
So we might have something within our RegistryRoutine.cls like:
Function GetMyValue() as integer
Dim R as new RegistryRoutine
<calculations>
GetMyValue=R.GetRegisetryValue (HKEY, key, value, etc.)
End Function
No, in general you won't see any problems (like member variables being overwritten or anything weird like that).
Where you could run into issues is if you have explicity shared variables that are being written to multiple times. But that's dangerous no matter what you do.
Do watch out for recursive cases - e.g., GetMyValue() should not call R.GetMyValue(), nor should GetRegistryValue() call GetMyValue().
It's rare that you actually want to do this, however.
Since you're not passing any arguments into GetMyValue(), we can assume that the current instance already has all the information it needs.
Since you're only returning an integer, not a RegistryRoutine instance, the client has no need for a new instance.
So, why not just call GetRegistryValue (without the R.)?
It's quite common for classes to work with instances of themselves. Consider, for example, how a tree structure works. Either a Node class has to keep track of its children, or has to keep track of its parent (or both). All the nodes are the same class.
Related
I need to expose the "is mapped?" state of an instance of a class. The outcome is determined by a basic check. It is not simply exposing the value of a field. I am unsure as to whether I should use a read-only property or a method.
Read-only property:
public bool IsMapped
{
get
{
return MappedField != null;
}
}
Method:
public bool IsMapped()
{
return MappedField != null;
}
I have read MSDN's Choosing Between Properties and Methods but I am still unsure.
The C# standard says
§ 8.7.4
A property is a member that provides access to a characteristic of an object or a class. Examples of properties include the length of a string, the size of a font, the caption of a window, the name of a customer, and so on. Properties are a natural extension of fields. Both are named members with associated types, and the syntax for accessing fields and properties is the same. However, unlike fields, properties do not denote storage locations. Instead, properties have accessors that specify the statements to be executed when their values are read or written.
while as methods are defined as
§ 8.7.3
A method is a member that implements a computation or action that can be performed by an object or class. Methods have a (possibly empty) list of formal parameters, a return value (unless the method’s return-type is void ), and are either static or non-static.
Properties and methods are used to realize encapsulation. Properties encapsulate data, methods encapsulate logic. And this is why you should prefer a read-only property if you are exposing data. In your case there is no logic that modifies the internal state of your object. You want to provide access to a characteristic of an object.
Whether an instance of your object IsMapped or not is a characteristic of your object. It contains a check, but that's why you have properties to access it. Properties can be defined using logic, but they should not expose logic. Just like the example mentioned in the first quote: Imagine the String.Length property. Depending on the implementation, it may be that this property loops through the string and counts the characters. It also does perform an operation, but "from the outside" it just give's an statement over the internal state/characteristics of the object.
I would use the property, because there is no real "doing" (action), no side effects and it's not too complex.
I personally believe that a method should do something or perform some action. You are not performing anything inside IsMapped so it should be a property
I'd go for a property. Mostly because the first senctence on the referenced MSDN-article:
In general, methods represent actions and properties represent data.
In this case it seems pretty clear to me that it should be a property. It's a simple check, no logic, no side effects, no performance impact. It doesn't get much simpler than that check.
Edit:
Please note that if there was any of the above mentioned and you would put it into a method, that method should include a strong verb, not an auxiliary verb like is or has. A method does something. You could name it VerifyMapping or DetermineMappingExistance or something else as long as it starts with a verb.
I think this line in your link is the answer
methods represent actions and properties represent data.
There is no action here, just a piece of data. So it's a Property.
In situations/languages where you have access to both of these constructs, the general divide is as follows:
If the request is for something the object has, use a property (or a field).
If the request is for the result of something the object does, use a method.
A little more specifically, a property is to be used to access, in read and/or write fashion, a data member that is (for consuming purposes) owned by the object exposing the property. Properties are better than fields because the data doesn't have to exist in persistent form all the time (they allow you to be "lazy" about calculation or retrieval of this data value), and they're better than methods for this purpose because you can still use them in code as if they were public fields.
Properties should not, however, result in side effects (with the possible, understandable exception of setting a variable meant to persist the value being returned, avoiding expensive recalculation of a value needed many times); they should, all other things being equal, return a deterministic result (so NextRandomNumber is a bad conceptual choice for a property) and the calculation should not result in the alteration of any state data that would affect other calculations (for instance, getting PropertyA and PropertyB in that order should not return any different result than getting PropertyB and then PropertyA).
A method, OTOH, is conceptually understood as performing some operation and returning the result; in short, it does something, which may extend beyond the scope of computing a return value. Methods, therefore, are to be used when an operation that returns a value has additional side effects. The return value may still be the result of some calculation, but the method may have computed it non-deterministically (GetNextRandomNumber()), or the returned data is in the form of a unique instance of an object, and calling the method again produces a different instance even if it may have the same data (GetCurrentStatus()), or the method may alter state data such that doing exactly the same thing twice in a row produces different results (EncryptDataBlock(); many encryption ciphers work this way by design to ensure encrypting the same data twice in a row produces different ciphertexts).
If at any point you'll need to add parameters in order to get the value, then you need a method. Otherwise you need a property
IMHO , the first read-only property is correct because IsMapped as a Attribute of your object, and you're not performing an action (only an evaluation), but at the end of the day consistancy with your existing codebase probably counts for more than semantics.... unless this is a uni assignment
I'll agree with people here in saying that because it is obtaining data, and has no side-effects, it should be a property.
To expand on that, I'd also accept some side-effects with a setter (but not a getter) if the side-effects made sense to someone "looking at it from the outside".
One way to think about it is that methods are verbs, and properties are adjectives (meanwhile, the objects themselves are nouns, and static objects are abstract nouns).
The only exception to the verb/adjective guideline is that it can make sense to use a method rather than a property when obtaining (or setting) the information in question can be very expensive: Logically, such a feature should probably still be a property, but people are used to thinking of properties as low-impact performance-wise and while there's no real reason why that should always be the case, it could be useful to highlight that GetIsMapped() is relatively heavy perform-wise if it in fact was.
At the level of the running code, there's absolutely no difference between calling a property and calling an equivalent method to get or set; it's all about making life easier for the person writing code that uses it.
I would expect property as it only is returning the detail of a field. On the other hand I would expect
MappedFields[] mf;
public bool IsMapped()
{
mf.All(x => x != null);
}
you should use the property because c# has properties for this reason
In programming, the standard practice is to give each object it's own unique name by assigning it's address to only one reference variable.
If we assign one reference variable to another reference variable, it creates two different names for the same thing. I was asked when doing this would be useful.
When would using ambiguous names be useful? The only reason I could see for doing this is if you need to make a copy of an object's value to prevent overwriting.
What you describe is not ambiguity, it's aliasing (specifically pointer aliasing).
You don't usually do it explicitly, but it can be very useful if you pass a reference/pointer to another method. Then at least two variables (the original one and the parameter) will reference the same object, but for different reasons.
If you do it explicitly, then it's usually because two variables take two different roles.
For example if you're writing code that traverses a tree, you usually start at the root. So the beginning of your code might look like this:
TreeNode rootNode = getTreeRootFromSomewhere();
TreeNode currentNode = rootNode;
while (currentNode != null) {
...
In this case currentNode is obviously an alias for rootNode at this point. Later on we will certainly change what currentNode points to, but the first time you enter the loop they point to the same object.
I am looking for some guidance as to what is going on when using proto-buf net with obfuscation (Dotfuscator). One half of the project is a DLL and the other is an EXE elsewhere and using proto-buf NET they exchange data flawlessly. Until I obfuscate the DLL.
At that point P-BN fails without raising an exception, returning variously a 0 length byte array or a foreshortened one depending on what I have fiddled with. The class is fairly simple (VB):
<ProtoContract(Name:="DMailer")> _
Friend Class DMailer
Private _Lic As Cert
Private _Sys As Sys
Private _LList As List(Of LItem)
..
..
End Class
There are 3 props all decorated with ProtoMember to get/set the constituent class objects. Snipped for brevity.
Again, it works GREAT until I obfuscate the DLL. Then, Dotfuscator renames each of these to null, apparently since they are all Friend, and that seems to choke proto-buff. If I exempt the class from renaming (just the class name, not props/members), it seems to work again. It makes sense that P-BN would only be able to act on objects with a proper name, though when asked to serialize a null named object, it seems like an exception might be in order.
On the other hand, much of the charm of PB-N is supposed to be serialization independent of .NET names working from attributes - at least as I understand it. Yet in this case it only seems to work with classes with names. I tried using the Name qualifier or argument as shown above, to no avail - it apparently doesnt do what I thought it might.
So, I am curious if:
a) ...I have basically surmised the problem correctly
b) ...There is some other attribute or flag that might facilitate serializing
a null named object
c) ...if there are any other insights that would help.
If I exempt all 3 or 4 classes from Dotfuscator renaming (LList is not actually implemented yet, leaving DMailer, Cert and Sys), the DLL seems to work again - at least the output is the correct size. I can live with that, though obscured names would be better: Dotfuscator (CE) either exempts them or sets the names to Null - I cant seem to find a way to force them to be renamed.
Rather than exempt 3 or 4 classes from renaming, one alternative I am considering is to simply store the Serializer output for Cert and Sys as byte arrays or Base64 strings in DMailer instead of classes. Then have the receiver Deserialize each object individually. It is kind of nice to be able to unpack just one thing and have your toys right there as if by magic though.
(many)TIA
Interesting. I confess I have never tried this scenario, but if you can walk me through your process (or better: maybe provide a basic repro example with "run this, then this, then this: boom") I'll happily investigate.
Note: the Name on ProtoContract is mainly intended for GetProto() usage; it is not needed by the core serializer, and can be omitted to reduce your exposure. Also, protobuf-net isn't interested in fields unless those fields are decorated with the attributes, so that shouldn't be an issue.
However! there's probably a workaround here that should work now; you can pre-generate a static serialization dll; for example in a separate console exe (just as a tool; I really need to wrap this in a standalone utility!)
So if you create a console exe that references your unobfuscated library and protobuf-net.dll:
var model = RuntimeTypeModel.Create();
model.Add(typeof(DMailer), true); // true means "use the attributes etc"
// and other types needed, etc
model.Compile("MailSerializer", "MailSerializer.dll");
this should write MailSerializer.dll, which you can then reference from your main code (in addition to protobuf-net), and use:
var ser = new MailSerializer(); // our pre-genereated serializer
ser.Serialize(...); // etc
Then include MailSerializer.dll in your obfuscation payload.
(this is all v2 specific, btw)
If this doesn't work, I'll need to investigate the main issue, but I'm not an obfuscation expert so could do with your repro steps.
Since there were a few upticks of interest, here is what looks like will work:
a) No form of reflection will be able to get the list of properties for an obfuscated type.
I tried walking thru all the types to find the ones with ProtoContract on it, I could find them
but the property names are all changed to a,m, b, j, g.
I also tried Me.GetType.GetProperties with the same result.
You could implement a map from the output to indicate that Employee.FirstName is now a0.j, but distributing this defeats the purpose of obfuscation.
b) What does work to a degree is to exempt the class NAME from obfuscation. Since PB-N looks for the ProtoMember attributes to get the data, you CAN obfuscate the Property/Member names, just not the CLASS/type name. If the name is something like FederalReserveLogIn, your class/type has a bullseye on it.
I have had initial success doing the following:
1) Build a simple class to store a Property Token and value. Store everything as string using ConvertFromInvariantString. Taking a tip from PBN, I used an integer for the token:
<ProtoMember(propIndex.Foo)>
Property Foo As String
An enum helps tie everything together later. Store these in a Dictionary(Of T, NameValuePair)
2) add some accessors. these can perform the type conversions for you:
Public Sub Add(ByVal Key As T, ByVal value As Object)
If _col.ContainsKey(Key) Then
_col.Remove(Key)
End If
_col.Add(Key, New TValue(value))
End Sub
Public Function GetTItem(Of TT)(key As T) As TT
If _col.ContainsKey(key) Then
Return CType(_col(key).TValue, TT)
Else
Return Nothing
End If
End Function
T is whatever key type you wish to use. Integer results in the smallest output and still allows the subscribing code to use an Enum. But it could be String.
TT is the original type:
myFoo = props.GetTItem(Of Long)(propsEnum.Foo)
3) Expose the innerlist (dictionary) to PBN and bingo, all done.
Its also very easy to add converters for Point, Rectangle, Font, Size, Color and even bitmap.
HTH
I need to write some instance method, something like this (code in ruby):
def foo_bar(param)
foo(param)
if some_condition
do_bar(param)
else
do_baz(param)
end
end
Method foo_bar is a public api.
But I think, param variable here appears too many times. Maybe it would be better to create an private instance variable and use it in foo, do_bar and do_baz method? Like here: (#param is an instance variable in ruby, it can be initialized any time)
def foo_bar(param)
#param = param
foo
if some_condition
do_bar
else
do_baz
end
end
Which code is better? And why?
Is param replacing part of the state of the object?
If param is not changing the object state then it would be wrong to introduce non-obvious coupling between these methods as a convenience.
If param is altering the state of the object then it may still be bad practice to have a public api altering the state - much better to have a single private method responsible for checking and changing the state.
If param is directly setting the state of the object then I would change the instance variable here but only after checking that the new state is not inconsistent
The first version should be preferred for a couple of reasons. First, it makes testing much easier as each method is independent of other state. To test the do_bar method, simply create an instance of its containing class and invoke the method with various parameters. If you chose the second version of code, you'd have to make sure that the object had all the proper instance variables set before invoking the method. This tightly couples the test code with the object and results in broken test cases or, even worse, testcases that should no longer pass, but still do since they haven't been updated to match how the object now works.
The second reason to prefer the first version of code is that it is a more functional style and facilitates easier reuse. Say that another module or lambda function implements do_bar better than the current one. It won't have been coded to assume some parent class with a certain named instance variable. To be reusable, it will have expected any variables to be passed in as parameters.
The functional approach is the much better approach ... even in object oriented languages.
If you do not need param outside of the foo_bar method the first version is better. It is more obvious what information is being passed around and you are keeping it more thread friendly.
And I also agree with Mladen in the comment above: don't add something to the object state that doesn't belong there.
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.