I'm learning OOP and trying to write a simple program that will execute some method every time when a specific varible will change.
I have two classes:
public class SomeClass {
private OtherClass object;
public OtherClass getObject() {
return this.object;
}
public void setObject(OtherClass object) {
objectChanged();
this.object = object;
}
private void objectChanged() {
System.out.println("Object has changed");
}
}
public class OtherClass {
private int value = 5;
public int getValue() {
return this.value;
}
public void setValue(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
The variable objectChanged should be called every time when variable "object" is changed. My first naive idea was to put the method call inside of set function. But what if you change the object after you set it? Like this:
SomeClass someObject = new SomeClass();
OtherClass otherObject = new OtherClass();
someObject.setObject(otherObject); //"Object has changed"
otherObject.setValue(10); //nothing happens yet
I need someObject to realize that object stored inside of it changed its value to 10, but how do i do it? Is it even possible in OOP?
It looks to be reasonable, but one should consider many things. This is why there is no automatic way to do it in general. It is not part of the OOP paradigm as such. If this would be some automatic behavior, it would cause huge overhead as it is not often needed to observe changes this way. But you can, of course, implement your way depending on your concrete requirements.
There are at least two approaches.
In MVVM (like WPF) there is an INotifyPropertyChanged interface (let's call it a pattern) you can use to trigger a notification yourself, mutch like you did with SomeClass. However when you are nesting objects, you need to wire up that mechanism.to cascade: you should do the same with OtherClass and also connect the actual instances to bubble up changes.
See: https://rehansaeed.com/tag/design-patterns/
An other option is the Observable pattern. Each time the object changes state, you emit an instance - the current instance. However, you should care to emit unmutable objects. At least by using an interface that makes it read-only. But you still need to wire up the object tree to react to the changes of nested objects.
If your platform supports reflection, and you create a proper toolset, you could make this wiring up quite simple. But again: this is not strictly related to the paradigm.
I'm seeing code in our legacy system where the class's public methods, clone the object, do the state mutation and return a new copy of the object.
It just feels wrong but just wondering if anyone knows of a known good reason to do this. Otherwise if anyone knows of a really bad reason to do this can you help out. I just need to arm myself with some arguments to and for this situation before I go and propose a big change.
Thanks
Sample Code
public Class MyClass
{
public string MyProp { get; set; }
public MyClass Cancel()
{
var newObj = this.Clone();
newObj.Status = Status.Cancelled;
return newObj;
}
}
This is a typical pattern with immutable objects, like String in Java or .Net for instance. By returning a new object with the change, references to the old object don't see the state change. Being able to rely on an object not changing can be very useful. Immutable objects come with a cost, of course, that every state change requires allocating a new instance.
As MattDavey points out in a comment on the question, that sample code (assuming the missing bits added in) creates a class with mutable instances, because MyProp's set is public. So it seems to ensure immutablility for Status but not for MyProp, which would be fairly unusual. It's more typical for an instance to be immutable, or not, but not partially so. I assume that's a by-product of editing the code for the question, though...
Is it possible to extend or modify the code of a C# class at runtime?
My question specifically revolves around Monkey Patching / Duck Punching or Meta Object Programming (MOP), as it happens in scripting languages such as Groovy, Ruby etc.
For those still stumbling on this question in the present day, there is indeed a present-day library called Harmony that relatively-straightforwardly enables such monkey-patching at runtime. Its focus is on video game modding (particularly games built with Unity), but there ain't much stopping folks from using it outside of that use case.
Copying the example from their introduction, if you have an existing class like so:
public class SomeGameClass
{
public bool isRunning;
public int counter;
private int DoSomething()
{
if (isRunning)
{
counter++;
}
return counter * 10;
}
}
Then Harmony can patch it like so:
using HarmonyLib;
using Intro_SomeGame;
public class MyPatcher
{
// make sure DoPatching() is called at start either by
// the mod loader or by your injector
public static void DoPatching()
{
var harmony = new Harmony("com.example.patch");
harmony.PatchAll();
}
}
[HarmonyPatch(typeof(SomeGameClass))]
[HarmonyPatch("DoSomething")]
class Patch01
{
static AccessTools.FieldRef<SomeGameClass, bool> isRunningRef =
AccessTools.FieldRefAccess<SomeGameClass, bool>("isRunning");
static bool Prefix(SomeGameClass __instance, ref int ___counter)
{
isRunningRef(__instance) = true;
if (___counter > 100)
return false;
___counter = 0;
return true;
}
static void Postfix(ref int __result)
{
__result *= 2;
}
}
Here, we have a "prefix" patch which gets inserted before the original method runs, allowing us to set variables within the method, set fields on the method's class, or even skip the original method entirely. We also have a "postfix" patch which gets inserted after the original method runs, and can manipulate things like the return value.
Obviously this ain't quite as nice as the sorts of monkey-patching you can do in e.g. Ruby, and there are a lot of caveats that might hinder its usefulness depending on your use case, but in those situations where you really do need to alter methods, Harmony's a pretty proven approach to doing so.
Is it possible to extend or modify the code of a C# class at run-time?
No it is not possible to do this in .NET. You could write derived classes and override methods (if they are virtual) but you cannot modify an existing class. Just imagine if what you were asking was possible: you could modify the behavior of some existing system classes like System.String.
You may also take a look at Extension methods to add functionality to an existing class.
You can add functionality, but you cannot change or remove functionality.
You can extend classes by adding extra methods, but you cannot override them because added methods have always lower priority than existing ones.
For more info, check Extension Methods in C# Programming Guide.
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.
Can a class return an object of itself.
In my example I have a class called "Change" which represents a change to the system, and I am wondering if it is in anyway against design principles to return an object of type Change or an ArrayList which is populated with all the recent Change objects.
Yes, a class can have a method that returns an instance of itself. This is quite a common scenario.
In C#, an example might be:
public class Change
{
public int ChangeID { get; set; }
private Change(int changeId)
{
ChangeID = changeId;
LoadFromDatabase();
}
private void LoadFromDatabase()
{
// TODO Perform Database load here.
}
public static Change GetChange(int changeId)
{
return new Change(changeId);
}
}
Yes it can. In fact, that's exactly what a singleton class does. The first time you call its class-level getInstance() method, it constructs an instance of itself and returns that. Then subsequent calls to getInstance() return the already-constructed instance.
Your particular case could use a similar method but you need some way of deciding the list of recent changes. As such it will need to maintain its own list of such changes. You could do this with a static array or list of the changes. Just be certain that the underlying information in the list doesn't disappear - this could happen in C++ (for example) if you maintained pointers to the objects and those objects were freed by your clients.
Less of an issue in an automatic garbage collection environment like Java since the object wouldn't disappear whilst there was still a reference to it.
However, you don't have to use this method. My preference with what you describe would be to have two clases, changelist and change. When you create an instance of the change class, pass a changelist object (null if you don't want it associated with a changelist) with the constructor and add the change to that list before returning it.
Alternatively, have a changelist method which creates a change itself and returns it, remembering the change for its own purposes.
Then you can query the changelist to get recent changes (however you define recent). That would be more flexible since it allows multiple lists.
You could even go overboard and allow a change to be associated with multiple changelists if so desired.
Another reason to return this is so that you can do function chaining:
class foo
{
private int x;
public foo()
{
this.x = 0;
}
public foo Add(int a)
{
this.x += a;
return this;
}
public foo Subtract(int a)
{
this.x -= a;
return this;
}
public int Value
{
get { return this.x; }
}
public static void Main()
{
foo f = new foo();
f.Add(10).Add(20).Subtract(1);
System.Console.WriteLine(f.Value);
}
}
$ ./foo.exe
29
There's a time and a place to do function chaining, and it's not "anytime and everywhere." But, LINQ is a good example of a place that hugely benefits from function chaining.
A class will often return an instance of itself from what is sometimes called a "factory" method. In Java or C++ (etc) this would usually be a public static method, e.g. you would call it directly on the class rather than on an instance of a class.
In your case, in Java, it might look something like this:
List<Change> changes = Change.getRecentChanges();
This assumes that the Change class itself knows how to track changes itself, rather than that job being the responsibility of some other object in the system.
A class can also return an instance of itself in the singleton pattern, where you want to ensure that only one instance of a class exists in the world:
Foo foo = Foo.getInstance();
The fluent interface methods work on the principal of returning an instance of itself, e.g.
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("123");
sb.Append("456").Append("789");
You need to think about what you're trying to model. In your case, I would have a ChangeList class that contains one or more Change objects.
On the other hand, if you were modeling a hierarchical structure where a class can reference other instances of the class, then what you're doing makes sense. E.g. a tree node, which can contain other tree nodes.
Another common scenario is having the class implement a static method which returns an instance of it. That should be used when creating a new instance of the class.
I don't know of any design rule that says that's bad. So if in your model a single change can be composed of multiple changes go for it.