Search Results

Search found 4593 results on 184 pages for 'constructor injection'.

Page 21/184 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • What are the best practices to use NHiberante sessions in asp.net (mvc/web api) ?

    - by mrt181
    I have the following setup in my project: public class WebApiApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication { public static ISessionFactory SessionFactory { get; private set; } public WebApiApplication() { this.BeginRequest += delegate { var session = SessionFactory.OpenSession(); CurrentSessionContext.Bind(session); }; this.EndRequest += delegate { var session = SessionFactory.GetCurrentSession(); if (session == null) { return; } session = CurrentSessionContext.Unbind(SessionFactory); session.Dispose(); }; } protected void Application_Start() { AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(); FilterConfig.RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilters.Filters); RouteConfig.RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes); BundleConfig.RegisterBundles(BundleTable.Bundles); var assembly = Assembly.GetCallingAssembly(); SessionFactory = new NHibernateHelper(assembly, Server.MapPath("/")).SessionFactory; } } public class PositionsController : ApiController { private readonly ISession session; public PositionsController() { this.session = WebApiApplication.SessionFactory.GetCurrentSession(); } public IEnumerable<Position> Get() { var result = this.session.Query<Position>().Cacheable().ToList(); if (!result.Any()) { throw new HttpResponseException(new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NotFound)); } return result; } public HttpResponseMessage Post(PositionDataTransfer dto) { //TODO: Map dto to model IEnumerable<Position> positions = null; using (var transaction = this.session.BeginTransaction()) { this.session.SaveOrUpdate(positions); try { transaction.Commit(); } catch (StaleObjectStateException) { if (transaction != null && transaction.IsActive) { transaction.Rollback(); } } } var response = this.Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, dto); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(this.Request.RequestUri.AbsoluteUri + "/" + dto.Name); return response; } public void Put(int id, string value) { //TODO: Implement PUT throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void Delete(int id) { //TODO: Implement DELETE throw new NotImplementedException(); } } I am not sure if this is the recommended way to insert the session into the controller. I was thinking about using DI but i am not sure how to inject the session that is opened and binded in the BeginRequest delegate into the Controllers constructor to get this public PositionsController(ISession session) { this.session = session; } Question: What is the recommended way to use NHiberante sessions in asp.net mvc/web api ?

    Read the article

  • Loading data in constructors and not in constructors

    - by Richeve S. Bebedor
    I just want to know the difference between loading the data inside the constructor and loading the data outside the constructor but not inside any methods example: Loading inside constructor public class Model{ Object testobject; public Model(){ testobject=new Object(); } } VS example: Loading outside constructor public class Model{ Object testobject=new Object(); public Model(){ } }

    Read the article

  • Using constructor to load data in subsonic3?

    - by Dennis
    I'm getting an error while trying to load an record through the constructor. The constructor is: public Document(Expression<Func<Document,bool>> expression); and i try to load a single item in like this var x = new Document(f=>f.publicationnumber=="xxx"); publicationnumber isn't a key but tried making an it an unique key and still no go.. Am i totally wrong regarding the use of the constructor? and can someone please tell me how to use that constructor? The error i'm getting is: Test method TestProject1.UnitTest1.ParseFileNameTwoProductSingleLanguage threw exception: System.NullReferenceException: with the following stacktrace: SubSonic.Query.SqlQuery.Where[T](Expression1` expression) Load`[T]`(T item, Expression1expression) db.Document..ctor(Expression``1 expression) in C:\@Projects\DocumentsSearchAndAdmin\DocumentsSearchAndAdmin\Generated\ActiveRecord.cs: line 5613 rest removed for simplicity Regards Dennis

    Read the article

  • Legitimate uses of the Function constructor

    - by Marcel Korpel
    As repeatedly said, it is considered bad practice to use the Function constructor (also see the ECMAScript Language Specification, 5th edition, § 15.3.2.1): new Function ([arg1[, arg2[, … argN]],] functionBody) (where all arguments are strings containing argument names and the last (or only) string contains the function body). To recapitulate, it is said to be slow, as explained by the Opera team: Each time […] the Function constructor is called on a string representing source code, the script engine must start the machinery that converts the source code to executable code. This is usually expensive for performance – easily a hundred times more expensive than a simple function call, for example. (Mark ‘Tarquin’ Wilton-Jones) Though it's not that bad, according to this post on MDC (I didn't test this myself using the current version of Firefox, though). Crockford adds that [t]he quoting conventions of the language make it very difficult to correctly express a function body as a string. In the string form, early error checking cannot be done. […] And it is wasteful of memory because each function requires its own independent implementation. Another difference is that a function defined by a Function constructor does not inherit any scope other than the global scope (which all functions inherit). (MDC) Apart from this, you have to be attentive to avoid injection of malicious code, when you create a new Function using dynamic contents. Lots of disadvantages and it is intelligible that ECMAScript 5 discourages the use of the Function constructor by throwing an exception when using it in strict mode (§ 13.1). That said, T.J. Crowder says in an answer that [t]here's almost never any need for the similar […] new Function(...), either, again except for some advanced edge cases. So, now I am wondering: what are these “advanced edge cases”? Are there legitimate uses of the Function constructor?

    Read the article

  • C++ copy constructor and shallow copy

    - by bartek
    Hi, suppose I have a class with many explicit (statically allocated) members and few pointers that are allocated dynamically. When I declare a copy constructor in witch I make a deep copy of manually allocated members, I wouldn't like to copy each statically allocated member explicite. How can I use implicit (default) copy constructor functionality in explicit copy constructor?

    Read the article

  • navigation framework in silverlight 3 skipping constructor when usercontrol is of a derived type

    - by tarren
    Hi: I am using the NavigationFramework in Silverlight 3, and am running into issues where the constructor of the UserControl in the xaml I am loading is not being called, and I believe this is because the UserControl in the xaml I am calling is actually derived from another user control. I have stepped through the debugger with specific break points and the constructor is being ignored completey. I have MyWindowBlue which is of type uctrlBaseMyWindow. The constructor for uctrlBaseMyWindow is being called when the xaml is 'navigated to' but the constructor for MyWindowBlue is being ignored. This is not the case if I add the user control via markup directly. Anyone else have this issue? The code I am using to navigate to the MyWindowBlue is this.MyContentFrame.Navigate(new Uri("/Controls/uctrlMyWindowBlue.xaml", UriKind.Relative)); Has anyone run into this or could offer any help? Thanks

    Read the article

  • validate constructor arguments or method parameters with annotations, and let them throw an exceptio

    - by marius
    I am validating constructor and method arguments, as I want to the software, especially the model part of it, to fail fast. As a result, constructor code often looks like this public MyModelClass(String arg1, String arg2, OtherModelClass otherModelInstance) { if(arg1 == null) { throw new IllegalArgumentsException("arg1 must not be null"); } // further validation of constraints... // actual constructor code... } Is there a way to do that with an annotation driven approach? Something like: public MyModelClass(@NotNull(raise=IllegalArgumentException.class, message="arg1 must not be null") String arg1, @NotNull(raise=IllegalArgumentException.class) String arg2, OtherModelClass otherModelInstance) { // actual constructor code... } In my eyes this would make the actual code a lot more readable. In understand that there are annotations in order to support IDE validation (like the existing @NotNull annotation). Thank you very much for your help.

    Read the article

  • Are parametrized calls/sanitization/escaping characters necessary for hashed password fields in SQL queries?

    - by Computerish
    When writing a login system for a website, it is standard to use some combination of parameterized calls, sanitizing the user input, and/or escaping special characters to prevent SQL injection attacks. Any good login system, however, should also hash (and possibly salt) every password before it goes into an SQL query, so is it still necessary to worry about SQL injection attacks in passwords? Doesn't a hash completely eliminate any possibility of an SQL injection attack on its own?

    Read the article

  • javascript : make a new safe class constructor

    - by guilin ??
    sometimes we loss the new keyword when define new object, obj = new Clazz(); //correct obj = Clazz(); //wrong, but no syntax error, hard to debug. I want to write a function to help me create Class and make it new safe. var Class = function(constructor){ //when constructor // if not call by new return new constructor(); // else constructor(); } var MyClazz = Class(function(name){ this.name = name }, SuperClazz1, SuperClass2 ) MyClazz.extend({ show: function(){console.log(this.name)} }) obj1 = new MyClazz(); obj2 = MyClazz(); // obj1 should same as obj2 Is it possible, any exists module?

    Read the article

  • Can I have conditional construction of classes when using IoC.Resolve ?

    - by Corpsekicker
    I have a service class which has overloaded constructors. One constructor has 5 parameters and the other has 4. Before I call, var service = IoC.Resolve<IService>(); I want to do a test and based on the result of this test, resolve service using a specific constructor. In other words, bool testPassed = CheckCertainConditions(); if (testPassed) { //Resolve service using 5 paramater constructor } else { //Resolve service using 4 parameter constructor //If I use 5 parameter constructor under these conditions I will have epic fail. } Is there a way I can specify which one I want to use?

    Read the article

  • What is the possible benefit (if any) of allowing recursive contructors?

    - by Penang
    In Java, constructors cannot be recursive. Compile time error: "recursive constructor invocation". Let's assume that we did not have this restriction. Things to keep in mind: The return type of a constructor is void. Since it is a void method you can't harness the complete power of recursion. A constructor can invoke itself (or any other constructor) using this(). But a "call to this must be first statement in constructor" We could use non local data between consecutive calls to still have some possible gain from recursive constructors. Would there be any benefit from allowing recursive constructors?

    Read the article

  • IoC.Resolve vs Constructor Injection

    - by Omu
    I heard a lot of people saying that it is a bad practice to use IoC.Resolve(), but I never heard a good reason why (if it's all about testing than you can just mock the container, and you're done). now the advantages of using Resolve instead of Constructor Injection is that you don't need to create classes that have 5 parameters in the constructor, and whenever you are going to create a instance of that class you're not gonna need to provide it with anything

    Read the article

  • static setter method injection in Spring

    - by vishnu
    Hi, I have following requirement I wanted to pass http:\\localhost:9080\testws.cls value as setter injection through spring configuration file. How can i do this static variable setter injection for WSDL_LOCATION public class Code1 extends javax.xml.ws.Service { private final static URL CODE1_WSDL_LOCATION; static { URL url = null; try { url = new URL("http:\\localhost:9080\testws.cls"); } catch (MalformedURLException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } CODE1_WSDL_LOCATION = url; } public Code1(URL wsdlLocation, QName serviceName) { super(wsdlLocation, serviceName); } public Code1() { super(CODE1_WSDL_LOCATION, new QName("http://tempuri.org", "Code1")); } /** * * @return * returns Code1Soap */ @WebEndpoint(name = "Code1Soap") public Code1Soap getCode1Soap() { return (Code1Soap)super.getPort(new QName("http://tempuri.org", "Code1Soap"), Code1Soap.class); } } Please help me out.

    Read the article

  • Unity and Object Creation

    - by William
    I am using unity as my IoC container. I am trying to implement a type of IProviderRepository. The concrete implementation has a constructor that accepts a type of IRepository. When I remove the constructor parameter from the concrete implementation everything works fine. I am sure the container is wired correctly. When I try to create the concrete object with the constructor I receive the following error: "The current build operation (build key Build Key[EMRGen.Infrastructure.Data.IRepository1[EMRGen.Model.Provider.Provider], null]) failed: The current type, EMRGen.Infrastructure.Data.IRepository1[EMRGen.Model.Provider.Provider], is an interface and cannot be constructed. Are you missing a type mapping? (Strategy type BuildPlanStrategy, index 3)". Is it possible to achieve the above mention functionality with Unity? Namely have Unity infer a concrete type from the Interface and also inject the constructor of the concrete type with the appropriate concrete object based on constructor parameters. Below is sample of my types defined in Unity and a skeleton class listing for what I want to achieve. IProviderRepository is implemented by ProviderRepository which has a constructor that expects a type of IRepository. <typeAlias alias="ProviderRepositoryInterface" type="EMRGen.Model.Provider.IProviderRepository, EMRGen.Model" /> <typeAlias alias="ProviderRepositoryConcrete" type="EMRGen.Infrastructure.Repositories.Providers.ProviderRepository, EMRGen.Infrastructure.Repositories" /> <typeAlias alias="ProviderGenericRepositoryInterface" type="EMRGen.Infrastructure.Data.IRepository`1[[EMRGen.Model.Provider.IProvider, EMRGen.Model]], EMRGen.Infrastructure" /> <typeAlias alias="ProviderGenericRepositoryConcrete" type="EMRGen.Infrastructure.Repositories.EntityFramework.ApplicationRepository`1[[EMRGen.Model.Provider.Provider, EMRGen.Model]], EMRGen.Infrastructure.Repositories" /> <!-- Provider Mapping--> <typeAlias alias="ProviderInterface" type="EMRGen.Model.Provider.IProvider, EMRGen.Model" /> <typeAlias alias="ProviderConcrete" type="EMRGen.Model.Provider.Doctor, EMRGen.Model" /> //Illustrate the call being made inside my class public class PrescriptionService { PrescriptionService() { IUnityContainer uc = UnitySingleton.Instance.Container; UnityServiceLocator unityServiceLocator = new UnityServiceLocator(uc); ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => unityServiceLocator); IProviderRepository pRepository = ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<IProviderRepository>(); } } public class GenericRepository<IProvider> : IRepository<IProvider> { } public class ProviderRepository : IProviderRepository { private IRepository<IProvider> _genericProviderRepository; //Explict public default constructor public ProviderRepository(IRepository<IProvider> genericProviderRepository) { _genericProviderRepository = genericProviderRepository; } }

    Read the article

  • VS 2008 irritating copy constructor link dependency

    - by Paul Hollingsworth
    Hi guys, I've run into the following annoying and seemingly incorrect behaviour in the Visual Studio 2008 C++ compiler: Suppose I have a class library - Car.lib - that uses a "Car" class, with a header called "Car.h": class Car { public: void Drive() { Accelerate(); } void Accelerate(); }; What I'm actually trying to do is use the Car headers (for some other functions), but without having to link with Car.lib itself (the actual class is not called "Car" but I am sanitising this example). If I #include "Car.h" in the .cpp file used to build a managed C++ .dll, but never refer to Car, everything compiles and links fine. This is because I never instantiate a Car object. However, the following: namespace { class Car { public: Car(const Car& rhs) { Accelerate(); } void Accelerate(); }; } leaves me with the link error: Error 2 error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: void __thiscall `anonymous namespace'::Car::Accelerate(void)" (?Accelerate@Car@?A0xce3bb5ed@@$$FQAEXXZ) CREObjectWrapper.obj CREObjectBuilderWrapper Note I've declared the whole thing inside an anonymous namespace so there's no way that the Car functions could be exported from the .DLL in any case. Declaring the copy constructor out-of-line makes no difference. i.e. the following also fails to link: class Car { public: Car(const Car& rhs); void Accelerate(); }; Car::Car(const Car& rhs) { Accelerate(); } It's something specifically to do with the copy constructor note, because the following, for example, does link: class Car { public: Car() { Accelerate(); } void Accelerate(); }; I am not a C++ standards guru but this doesn't seem correct to me. Surely the compiler still should not have had to even generate any code that calls the Car copy constructor. Can anyone confirm if this behaviour is correct? It's been a while since I used C++ - but I don't think this used to be an issue with Visual Studio 6.0 for example. Can anyone suggest a workaround that allows one to "re-use" the Accelerate method from within the copy constructor and still have the copy constructor declared inline?

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 4 – Calling the base method

    - by SeanMcAlinden
    Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 1 – Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and caching mechanism Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 2 – Interceptor Design Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 3 – Creating the constructors   The plan for calling the base methods from the proxy is to create a private method for each overridden proxy method, this will allow the proxy to use a delegate to simply invoke the private method when required. Quite a few helper classes have been created to make this possible so as usual I would suggest download or viewing the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/. In this post I’m just going to cover the main points for when creating methods. Getting the methods to override The first two notable methods are for getting the methods. private static MethodInfo[] GetMethodsToOverride<TBase>() where TBase : class {     return typeof(TBase).GetMethods().Where(x =>         !methodsToIgnore.Contains(x.Name) &&                              (x.Attributes & MethodAttributes.Final) == 0)         .ToArray(); } private static StringCollection GetMethodsToIgnore() {     return new StringCollection()     {         "ToString",         "GetHashCode",         "Equals",         "GetType"     }; } The GetMethodsToIgnore method string collection contains an array of methods that I don’t want to override. In the GetMethodsToOverride method, you’ll notice a binary AND which is basically saying not to include any methods marked final i.e. not virtual. Creating the MethodInfo for calling the base method This method should hopefully be fairly easy to follow, it’s only function is to create a MethodInfo which points to the correct base method, and with the correct parameters. private static MethodInfo CreateCallBaseMethodInfo<TBase>(MethodInfo method) where TBase : class {     Type[] baseMethodParameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, method.GetParameters());       return typeof(TBase).GetMethod(        method.Name,        BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic,        null,        baseMethodParameterTypes,        null     ); }   /// <summary> /// Get the parameter types. /// </summary> /// <param name="method">The method.</param> /// <param name="parameters">The parameters.</param> public static Type[] GetParameterTypes(MethodInfo method, ParameterInfo[] parameters) {     Type[] parameterTypesList = Type.EmptyTypes;       if (parameters.Length > 0)     {         parameterTypesList = CreateParametersList(parameters);     }     return parameterTypesList; }   Creating the new private methods for calling the base method The following method outline how I’ve created the private methods for calling the base class method. private static MethodBuilder CreateCallBaseMethodBuilder(TypeBuilder typeBuilder, MethodInfo method) {     string callBaseSuffix = "GetBaseMethod";       if (method.IsGenericMethod || method.IsGenericMethodDefinition)     {                         return MethodHelper.SetUpGenericMethod             (                 typeBuilder,                 method,                 method.Name + callBaseSuffix,                 MethodAttributes.Private | MethodAttributes.HideBySig             );     }     else     {         return MethodHelper.SetupNonGenericMethod             (                 typeBuilder,                 method,                 method.Name + callBaseSuffix,                 MethodAttributes.Private | MethodAttributes.HideBySig             );     } } The CreateCallBaseMethodBuilder is the entry point method for creating the call base method. I’ve added a suffix to the base classes method name to keep it unique. Non Generic Methods Creating a non generic method is fairly simple public static MethodBuilder SetupNonGenericMethod(     TypeBuilder typeBuilder,     MethodInfo method,     string methodName,     MethodAttributes methodAttributes) {     ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();       Type[] parameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, parameters);       Type returnType = method.ReturnType;       MethodBuilder methodBuilder = CreateMethodBuilder         (             typeBuilder,             method,             methodName,             methodAttributes,             parameterTypes,             returnType         );       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameters(parameterTypes, parameters, methodBuilder);       return methodBuilder; }   private static MethodBuilder CreateMethodBuilder (     TypeBuilder typeBuilder,     MethodInfo method,     string methodName,     MethodAttributes methodAttributes,     Type[] parameterTypes,     Type returnType ) { MethodBuilder methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(methodName, methodAttributes, returnType, parameterTypes); return methodBuilder; } As you can see, you simply have to declare a method builder, get the parameter types, and set the method attributes you want.   Generic Methods Creating generic methods takes a little bit more work. /// <summary> /// Sets up generic method. /// </summary> /// <param name="typeBuilder">The type builder.</param> /// <param name="method">The method.</param> /// <param name="methodName">Name of the method.</param> /// <param name="methodAttributes">The method attributes.</param> public static MethodBuilder SetUpGenericMethod     (         TypeBuilder typeBuilder,         MethodInfo method,         string methodName,         MethodAttributes methodAttributes     ) {     ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();       Type[] parameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, parameters);       MethodBuilder methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(methodName,         methodAttributes);       Type[] genericArguments = method.GetGenericArguments();       GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters =         GetGenericTypeParameters(methodBuilder, genericArguments);       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameterConstraints(parameterTypes, genericTypeParameters);       SetUpReturnType(method, methodBuilder, genericTypeParameters);       if (method.IsGenericMethod)     {         methodBuilder.MakeGenericMethod(genericArguments);     }       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameters(parameterTypes, parameters, methodBuilder);       return methodBuilder; }   private static GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] GetGenericTypeParameters     (         MethodBuilder methodBuilder,         Type[] genericArguments     ) {     return methodBuilder.DefineGenericParameters(GenericsHelper.GetArgumentNames(genericArguments)); }   private static void SetUpReturnType(MethodInfo method, MethodBuilder methodBuilder, GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters) {     if (method.IsGenericMethodDefinition)     {         SetUpGenericDefinitionReturnType(method, methodBuilder, genericTypeParameters);     }     else     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(method.ReturnType);     } }   private static void SetUpGenericDefinitionReturnType(MethodInfo method, MethodBuilder methodBuilder, GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters) {     if (method.ReturnType == null)     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(typeof(void));     }     else if (method.ReturnType.IsGenericType)     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(genericTypeParameters.Where             (x => x.Name == method.ReturnType.Name).First());     }     else     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(method.ReturnType);     }             } Ok, there are a few helper methods missing, basically there is way to much code to put in this post, take a look at the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ to follow it through completely. Basically though, when dealing with generics there is extra work to do in terms of getting the generic argument types setting up any generic parameter constraints setting up the return type setting up the method as a generic All of the information is easy to get via reflection from the MethodInfo.   Emitting the new private method Emitting the new private method is relatively simple as it’s only function is calling the base method and returning a result if the return type is not void. ILGenerator il = privateMethodBuilder.GetILGenerator();   EmitCallBaseMethod(method, callBaseMethod, il);   private static void EmitCallBaseMethod(MethodInfo method, MethodInfo callBaseMethod, ILGenerator il) {     int privateParameterCount = method.GetParameters().Length;       il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);       if (privateParameterCount > 0)     {         for (int arg = 0; arg < privateParameterCount; arg++)         {             il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_S, arg + 1);         }     }       il.Emit(OpCodes.Call, callBaseMethod);       il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret); } So in the main method building method, an ILGenerator is created from the method builder. The ILGenerator performs the following actions: Load the class (this) onto the stack using the hidden argument Ldarg_0. Create an argument on the stack for each of the method parameters (starting at 1 because 0 is the hidden argument) Call the base method using the Opcodes.Call code and the MethodInfo we created earlier. Call return on the method   Conclusion Now we have the private methods prepared for calling the base method, we have reached the last of the relatively easy part of the proxy building. Hopefully, it hasn’t been too hard to follow so far, there is a lot of code so I haven’t been able to post it all so please check it out at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/. The next section should be up fairly soon, it’s going to cover creating the delegates for calling the private methods created in this post.   Kind Regards, Sean.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >