I have a control mycontrol.ascx
This control has a property:
private GenericCollection<Item> myCollection;
public GenericCollection<Item> MyCollection
{
get { return myCollection; }
set { myCollection= value; }
}
Does anyone know how i could dynamically change from type Item to say type Product?
You can't. One of the main ideas with generics is that they are type safe. If you want to be able to alter which type that is stored MyCollection, you will need to use some type from which both Item and Product are derived.
As you have specified C# 2.0 then I think the answer will be that you can't. C# is statically typed and this code types the generic collection to a collection of Item. If Product were a superclass of Item then I believe you could store them in this collection but you'd need to query the object type when you retrieved it from the collection as it'll always come back as an Item.
I'll throw a question back at you, what are you trying to achieve in this dynamic replacement and why? There may be a better answer.
EDIT
Thinking about it further, following the comment, you might be able to do it using an interface, i.e.:
public IList myCollection { get; set; }
I haven't tried it, away from my dev station but might spark some others to either agree or correct me :)
Related
I am designing a process that should be run daily at work, and I've written a class to do the work. It looks something like this:
class LeadReport {
public $posts = array();
public $fields = array();
protected _getPost() {
// get posts of a certain type
// set them to the property $this->posts
}
protected _getFields() {
// use $this->posts to get fields
// set $this->fields
}
protected _writeCsv() {
// use the properties to write a csv
}
protected _sendMail() {
// attach a csv and send it
}
public function main() {
$this->out('Lead Report');
$this->out("Getting Yesterday's Posts...");
$this->_getPosts();
$this->out("Done.");
$this->out("Next, Parsing the Fields...");
$this->_getFields();
$this->out("Done.");
$this->out("Next, Writing the CSVs...");
$this->_writeCsv();
$this->out("Done.");
$this->out("Finally, Sending Mail");
$this->_sendMail();
$this->out('Bye!');
}
}
After showing this code to one of my colleagues, he commented that the _get() methods should have return values, and that the _write() and _sendMail() methods should use those values as parameters.
So, two questions:
1) Which is "correct" in this case (properties or return values)?
2) Is there a general rule or principle that governs when to use properties over when to use return values in object oriented programming?
I think maybe the source of your question comes from the fact that you are not entirely convinced that using properties is better than having public fields. For example here, common practice says that should not have posts and fields as public. You should use the getField method or a Field protected property to regulate access to those fields. Having a protected getField and a public fields doesn't really make sense.
In this case your colleague may be pointing at two things. The fact that you need to use Properties and not public fields and also the fact that it is probably better to pass the post into the method and not have the method access a property if you can. That way you don't have to set a property before calling the method. Think of it as a way of documenting what the method needs for it to operate. In this way another developer doesn't need to know which properties need to be set for the method to work. Everything the method needs should be passed in.
Regarding why we need properties in the first place? why shouldn't you use public fields. Isn't it more convenient? It sure is. The reason we use properties and not public fields is that just like most other concepts in OOP, you want your object to hide its details from the outside world and just project well defined interfaces of its state. Why? Ultimately to hide implementation details and keep internal change to ripple out(Encapsulation). Also, accessing properties has the added benefit of debugging. You can simply set a breakpoint in a property to see when a variable is changed or simply do a check if the variable is of certain value. Instead of littering your code with said check all over the place. There are many more goodies that come with this, returning readonly values, access control, etc.
To sum up, fields are though of as internal state. Properties(actual get/set methods) are though of as methods that interact with internal state. Having an outside object interact with interfaces is smiley face. Having outside class interact with internal state directly is frowny face.
So, I created a DataContext (Linq-Sql) in VS from an existing database. It has a table called Users, thus I have a User object. In particular, I want to focus on the UserID and Username properties.
Now, I have an interface:
interface IUser
{
int Id { get; }
string Username { get; }
}
I want to create a partial User class and implement IUser. The reason for this is so that I can treat any User as an IUser in many places and not be concerned about the precise User class:
public partial class User : IUser
{
public int Id
{
get { return UserID; }
}
}
I don't implement the Username get property because I know that the entity object already implements it.
When I have a query like dc.Users.SingleOrDefault(p => p.Id == 5); I know that it's an error because it'll translate that call to an SQL statement and it's going to try to find the Id column, which doesn't exist - UserID exists. So I understand this mapping issue.
When I query dc.Users.SingleOrDefault(p => p.Username == "admin"), it also throws an error, BUT Username IS indeed an existing column in the database, so my impression is that no custom/additional mapping needs to take place. What am I missing?
Can someone point me to a good source on how to combat Linq vs. partial classes implement a custom interface?
Update Question:
Before I try it, does anyone know if "rigging" the datacontext.designer.cs file with our custom interfaces (to implement to the classes themselves instead of in a separate partial class file) will work? Is there a consequence of doing this?
I've come across this before using Generics and LINQ, and the way I solved it was to change p.Id == 5 to p.Id.Equals(5) and LINQ was able to map the query.
In regards to rigging autogenerated code, I have done this in my projects, the only annoyance is having to type all the interfaces again if you regenerate your DBML file. I looked in to dynamically adding interfaces to classes and found this SO post, but I haven't tried it out yet:
What is the nicest way to dynamically implement an interface in C#?
Either way, re-typing is a much better trade off for us right now as we've been able to remove a lot of duplication in our implementation code with this method.
Unfortunately I'm not experienced enough with LINQ or .NET to explain why Equals() works when == does not :)
In my Google Web Toolkit project, I got the following error:
com.google.gwt.user.client.rpc.SerializationException: Type ‘your.class.Type’ was not included in the set of types which can be serialized by this SerializationPolicy or its Class object could not be loaded. For security purposes, this type will not be serialized.
What are the possible causes of this error?
GWT keeps track of a set of types which can be serialized and sent to the client. your.class.Type apparently was not on this list. Lists like this are stored in .gwt.rpc files. These lists are generated, so editing these lists is probably useless. How these lists are generated is a bit unclear, but you can try the following things:
Make sure your.class.Type implements java.io.Serializable
Make sure your.class.Type has a public no-args constructor
Make sure the members of your.class.Type do the same
Check if your program does not contain collections of a non-serializable type, e.g. ArrayList<Object>. If such a collection contains your.class.Type and is serialized, this error will occur.
Make your.class.Type implement IsSerializable. This marker interface was specifically meant for classes that should be sent to the client. This didn't work for me, but my class also implemented Serializable, so maybe both interfaces don't work well together.
Another option is to create a dummy class with your.class.Type as a member, and add a method to your RPC interface that gets and returns the dummy. This forces the GWT compiler to add the dummy class and its members to the serialization whitelist.
I'll also add that if you want to use a nested class, use a static member class.
I.e.,
public class Pojo {
public static class Insider {
}
}
Nonstatic member classes get the SerializationException in GWT 2.4
I had the same issue in a RemoteService like this
public List<X> getX(...);
where X is an interface. The only implementation did conform to the rules, i.e. implements Serializable or IsSerializable, has a default constructor, and all its (non-transient and non-final) fields follow those rules as well.
But I kept getting that SerializationException until I changed the result type from List to X[], so
public X[] getX(...);
worked. Interestingly, the only argument being a List, Y being an interface, was no problem at all...
I have run into this problem, and if you per chance are using JPA or Hibernate, this can be a result of trying to return the query object and not creating a new object and copying your relavant fields into that new object. Check the following out, which I saw in a google group.
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static List<Article> getForUser(User user)
{
List<Article> articles = null;
PersistenceManager pm = PMF.get().getPersistenceManager();
try
{
Query query = pm.newQuery(Article.class);
query.setFilter("email == emailParam");
query.setOrdering("timeStamp desc");
query.declareParameters("String emailParam");
List<Article> results = (List<Article>) query.execute(user.getEmail
());
articles = new ArrayList<Article>();
for (Article a : results)
{
a.getEmail();
articles.add(a);
}
}
finally
{
pm.close();
}
return articles;
}
this helped me out a lot, hopefully it points others in the right direction.
Looks like this question is very similar to what IsSerializable or not in GWT?, see more links to related documentation there.
When your class has JDO annotations, then this fixed it for me (in addition to the points in bspoel's answer) : https://stackoverflow.com/a/4826778/1099376
I'd like to use for table storage an entity like this:
public class MyEntity
{
public String Text { get; private set; }
public Int32 SomeValue { get; private set; }
public MyEntity(String text, Int32 someValue)
{
Text = text;
SomeValue = someValue;
}
}
But it's not possible, because the ATS needs
Parameterless constructor
All properties public and
read/write.
Inherit from TableServiceEntity;
The first two, are two things I don't want to do. Why should I want that anybody could change some data that should be readonly? or create objects of this kind in a inconsistent way (what are .ctor's for then?), or even worst, alter the PartitionKey or the RowKey. Why are we still constrained by these deserialization requirements?
I don't like develop software in that way, how can I use table storage library in a way that I can serialize and deserialize myself the objects? I think that as long the objects inherits from TableServiceEntity it shouldn't be a problem.
So far I got to save an object, but I don't know how retrieve it:
Message m = new Message("message XXXXXXXXXXXXX");
CloudTableClient tableClient = account.CreateCloudTableClient();
tableClient.CreateTableIfNotExist("Messages");
TableServiceContext tcontext = new TableServiceContext(account.TableEndpoint.AbsoluteUri, account.Credentials);
var list = tableClient.ListTables().ToArray();
tcontext.AddObject("Messages", m);
tcontext.SaveChanges();
Is there any way to avoid those deserialization requirements or get the raw object?
Cheers.
If you want to use the Storage Client Library, then yes, there are restrictions on what you can and can't do with your objects that you want to store. Point 1 is correct. I'd expand point 2 to say "All properties that you want to store must be public and read/write" (for integer properties you can get away with having read only properties and it won't try to save them) but you don't actually have to inherit from TableServiceEntity.
TableServiceEntity is just a very light class that has the properties PartitionKey, RowKey, Timestamp and is decorated with the DataServiceKey attribute (take a look with Reflector). All of these things you can do to a class that you create yourself and doesn't inherit from TableServiceEntity (note that the casing of these properties is important).
If this still doesn't give you enough control over how you build your classes, you can always ignore the Storage Client Library and just use the REST API directly. This will give you the ability to searialize and deserialize the XML any which way you like. You will lose the all of the nice things that come with using the library, like ability to create queries in LINQ.
The constraints around that ADO.NET wrapper for the Table Storage are indeed somewhat painful. You can also adopt a Fat Entity approach as implemented in Lokad.Cloud. This will give you much more flexibility concerning the serialization of your entities.
Just don't use inheritance.
If you want to use your own POCO's, create your class as you want it and create a separate tableEntity wrapper/container class that holds the pK and rK and carries your class as a serialized byte array.
You can use composition to achieve what you want.
Create your Table Entities as you need to for storage and create your POCOs as wrappers on those providing the API you want the rest of your application code to see.
You can even mix in some interfaces for better code.
How about generating the POCO wrappers at runtime using System.Reflection.Emit http://blog.kloud.com.au/2012/09/30/a-better-dynamic-tableserviceentity/
I am trying to map a domain model in NHibernate. The domain model is implemented with what I think is DDD style. The mapping works mostly but then when I try to use a collection filter on an a collection I get an exception which says: The collection was unreferenced.
I know the problem comes from how I've implemented the collection. My question: Is it possible to use collection filters in nHibernate on collections implemented this way or should I just forget it, i.e. nHibernate cannot work with this.
The code is as follows:
Person
{
IList<Address> _addresses = new List<Address>();
public string FirstName {get; set;}
...
public void addAddress(Address address)
{
// ... do some checks or validation
_addresses.Add(address);
}
public void removeAddress(Address address) {...}
public ReadOnlyCollection<Address> Addresses
{
get { return new ReadOnlyCollection<Address>(_addresses); }
}
}
The main issue is that I don't want to expose the internal addresses collection publicly.
Every other thing works, I use the field.camelcase-underscore access so nHibernate interacts directly with the field. I've been working through the Hibernate in Action book, an now I'm in chapter 7 where it deals with collection filters.
Is there any way around this. I've got it to work by exposing the internal collection like this:
public ReadOnlyCollection<Address> Addresses
{
get { return _addresses; }
}
but I really dont want to do this.
Help would really be appreciated.
Jide
If I recall correctly - NHibernate filter works as additional clause in sql queries to reduce returned rows from db.
My question to You is - why do You need that?
I mean - how much addresses one person might have? 1? 5? 10?
About collection isolation...
I myself just accept it as a sacrifice for NHibernate (just like argument-less ctor's and "virtual`ity") and use exposed IList everywhere (with private setters) just to reduce technical complexity. Their contents surely can be modified from outside, but I just don't do that.
It's more important to keep code easily understandable than making it super safe. Safety will follow.