Search Results

Search found 11680 results on 468 pages for 'convenience methods'.

Page 6/468 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Why you shouldn't add methods to interfaces in APIs

    - by Simon Cooper
    It is an oft-repeated maxim that you shouldn't add methods to a publically-released interface in an API. Recently, I was hit hard when this wasn't followed. As part of the work on ApplicationMetrics, I've been implementing auto-reporting of MVC action methods; whenever an action was called on a controller, ApplicationMetrics would automatically report it without the developer needing to add manual ReportEvent calls. Fortunately, MVC provides easy hook when a controller is created, letting me log when it happens - the IControllerFactory interface. Now, the dll we provide to instrument an MVC webapp has to be compiled against .NET 3.5 and MVC 1, as the lowest common denominator. This MVC 1 dll will still work when used in an MVC 2, 3 or 4 webapp because all MVC 2+ webapps have a binding redirect redirecting all references to previous versions of System.Web.Mvc to the correct version, and type forwards taking care of any moved types in the new assemblies. Or at least, it should. IControllerFactory In MVC 1 and 2, IControllerFactory was defined as follows: public interface IControllerFactory { IController CreateController(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); void ReleaseController(IController controller); } So, to implement the logging controller factory, we simply wrap the existing controller factory: internal sealed class LoggingControllerFactory : IControllerFactory { private readonly IControllerFactory m_CurrentController; public LoggingControllerFactory(IControllerFactory currentController) { m_CurrentController = currentController; } public IController CreateController( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName) { // log the controller being used FeatureSessionData.ReportEvent("Controller used:", controllerName); return m_CurrentController.CreateController(requestContext, controllerName); } public void ReleaseController(IController controller) { m_CurrentController.ReleaseController(controller); } } Easy. This works as expected in MVC 1 and 2. However, in MVC 3 this type was throwing a TypeLoadException, saying a method wasn't implemented. It turns out that, in MVC 3, the definition of IControllerFactory was changed to this: public interface IControllerFactory { IController CreateController(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); SessionStateBehavior GetControllerSessionBehavior( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); void ReleaseController(IController controller); } There's a new method in the interface. So when our MVC 1 dll was redirected to reference System.Web.Mvc v3, LoggingControllerFactory tried to implement version 3 of IControllerFactory, was missing the GetControllerSessionBehaviour method, and so couldn't be loaded by the CLR. Implementing the new method Fortunately, there was a workaround. Because interface methods are normally implemented implicitly in the CLR, if we simply declare a virtual method matching the signature of the new method in MVC 3, then it will be ignored in MVC 1 and 2 and implement the extra method in MVC 3: internal sealed class LoggingControllerFactory : IControllerFactory { ... public virtual SessionStateBehaviour GetControllerSessionBehaviour( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName) {} ... } However, this also has problems - the SessionStateBehaviour type only exists in .NET 4, and we're limited to .NET 3.5 by support for MVC 1 and 2. This means that the only solutions to support all MVC versions are: Construct the LoggingControllerFactory type at runtime using reflection Produce entirely separate dlls for MVC 1&2 and MVC 3. Ugh. And all because of that blasted extra method! Another solution? Fortunately, in this case, there is a third option - System.Web.Mvc also provides a DefaultControllerFactory type that can provide the implementation of GetControllerSessionBehaviour for us in MVC 3, while still allowing us to override CreateController and ReleaseController. However, this does mean that LoggingControllerFactory won't be able to wrap any calls to GetControllerSessionBehaviour. This is an acceptable bug, given the other options, as very few developers will be overriding GetControllerSessionBehaviour in their own custom controller factory. So, if you're providing an interface as part of an API, then please please please don't add methods to it. Especially if you don't provide a 'default' implementing type. Any code compiled against the previous version that can't be updated will have some very tough decisions to make to support both versions.

    Read the article

  • Why do some programmers think there is a contrast between theory and practice?

    - by Giorgio
    Comparing software engineering with civil engineering, I was surprised to observe a different way of thinking: any civil engineer knows that if you want to build a small hut in the garden you can just get the materials and go build it whereas if you want to build a 10-storey house you need to do quite some maths to be sure that it won't fall apart. In contrast, speaking with some programmers or reading blogs or forums I often find a wide-spread opinion that can be formulated more or less as follows: theory and formal methods are for mathematicians / scientists while programming is more about getting things done. What is normally implied here is that programming is something very practical and that even though formal methods, mathematics, algorithm theory, clean / coherent programming languages, etc, may be interesting topics, they are often not needed if all one wants is to get things done. According to my experience, I would say that while you do not need much theory to put together a 100-line script (the hut), in order to develop a complex application (the 10-storey building) you need a structured design, well-defined methods, a good programming language, good text books where you can look up algorithms, etc. So IMO (the right amount of) theory is one of the tools for getting things done. So my question is why do some programmers think that there is a contrast between theory (formal methods) and practice (getting things done)? Is software engineering (building software) perceived by many as easy compared to, say, civil engineering (building houses)? Or are these two disciplines really different (apart from mission-critical software, software failure is much more acceptable than building failure)?

    Read the article

  • Should I use formal methods on my software project?

    - by Michael
    Our client wants us to build a web-based, rich internet application for gathering software requirements. Basically it's a web-based case tool that follows a specific process for getting requirements from stakeholders. I'm the project manager and we're still in the early phases of the project. I've been thinking about using formal methods to help clarify the requirements for the tool for both my client and the developers. By formal methods I mean some form of modeling, possibly something mathematically-based. Some of the things I've read about and are considering include Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_notation), state machines, UML 2.0 (possibly with extensions such as OCL), Petri nets, and some coding-level stuff like contracts and pre and post conditions. Is there anything else I should consider? The developers are experienced but depending on the formalism used they may have to learn some math. I'm trying to determine whether it's worth while for me to use formal methods on this project and if so, to what extent. I know "it depends" so the most helpful answers for me is a yes/no and supporting arguments. Would you use formal methods if you were on this project?

    Read the article

  • Can static methods be called using object/instance in .NET

    Ans is Yes and No   Yes in C++, Java and VB.NET No in C#   This is only compiler restriction in c#. You might see in some websites that we can break this restriction using reflection and delegates, but we can’t, according to my little research J I shall try to explain you…   Following is code sample to break this rule using reflection, it seems that it is possible to call a static method using an object, p1 using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {             var p1 = new Person() { Name = "Smith" };             typeof(Person).GetMethod("TestStatMethod").Invoke(p1, new object[] { });                     }         class Person         {             public string Name { get; set; }             public static void TestStatMethod()             {                 Console.WriteLine("Hello");             }         }     } } but I do not think so this method is being called using p1 rather Type Name “Person”. I shall try to prove this… look at another example…  Test2 has been inherited from Test1. Let’s see various scenarios… Scenario1 using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {             Test1 t = new Test1();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                                  new object[] { });         }     }     class Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method1");         }     }       class Test2 : Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method2");         }     } } Output:   At test1::Method2 Scenario2         static void Main()         {             Test2 t = new Test2();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                                          new object[] { });         }   Output:   At test1::Method2   Scenario3         static void Main()         {             Test1 t = new Test2();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                             new object[] { });         }   Output: At test1::Method2 In all above scenarios output is same, that means, Reflection also not considering the object what you pass to Invoke method in case of static methods. It is always considering the type which you specify in typeof(). So, what is the use passing instance to “Invoke”. Let see below sample using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").                Invoke(null, new object[] { });         }     }       class Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method1");         }     }     class Test2 : Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method2");         }     } }   Output is   At test1::Method2   I was able to call Invoke “Method1” of Test2 without any object.  Yes, there no wonder here as Method1 is static. So we may conclude that static methods cannot be called using instances (only in c#) Why Microsoft has restricted it in C#? Ans: Really there Is no use calling static methods using objects because static methods are stateless. but still Java and C++ latest compilers allow calling static methods using instances. Java sample class Test {      public static void main(String str[])      {            Person p = new Person();            System.out.println(p.GetCount());      } }   class Person {   public static int GetCount()   {      return 100;   } }   Output          100 span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • System.Reflection - Global methods aren't available for reflection

    - by mrjoltcola
    I have an issue with a semantic gap between the CLR and System.Reflection. System.Reflection does not (AFAIK) support reflecting on global methods in an assembly. At the assembly level, I must start with the root types. My compiler can produce assemblies with global methods, and my standard bootstrap lib is a dll that includes some global methods. My compiler uses System.Reflection to import assembly metadata at compile time. It seems if I depend on System.Reflection, global methods are not a possibility. The cleanest solution is to convert all of my standard methods to class static methods, but the point is, my language allows global methods, and the CLR supports it, but System.Reflection leaves a gap. ildasm shows the global methods just fine, but I assume it does not use System.Reflection itself and goes right to the metadata and bytecode. Besides System.Reflection, is anyone aware of any other 3rd party reflection or disassembly libs that I could make use of (assuming I will eventually release my compiler as free, BSD licensed open source).

    Read the article

  • When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

    - by modiX
    I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

    Read the article

  • Why is it impossible to declare extension methods in a generic static class?

    - by Hun1Ahpu
    I'd like to create a lot of extension methods for some generic class, e.g. for public class SimpleLinkedList<T> where T:IComparable And I've started creating methods like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions { public static T[] ToArray<T>(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) where T:IComparable { //// code } } But when I tried to make LinkedListExtensions class generic like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions<T> where T:IComparable { public static T[] ToArray(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) { ////code } } I get "Extension methods can only be declared in non-generic, non-nested static class". And I'm trying to guess where this restriction came from and have no ideas.

    Read the article

  • Simple way to reorder methods of a Java class in IntelliJ?

    - by Péter Török
    Is there a simpler way of reordering methods within a class source file in IntelliJ than cutting and pasting the code manually? Nowadays I often need this while refactoring legacy code, e.g. to move related methods close to each other in the source code. In Eclipse AFAIK there is a view similar to the Structure view of IntelliJ, where I can drag and drop methods around. However, this does not work in IntelliJ and I couldn't find any hints from its help either. I am using IntelliJ 9.0.2 to be specific.

    Read the article

  • Background & Research Methods section (Writing an Article)

    - by sterz
    It is my first time writing an article on a software project. I am supposed to use ACM UbiComp paper format. I already have a structure that I should follow and there is a Background & Research Methods section after Abstract, Introduction, Related Work sections. I have browser through several articles, but some of them either dont have it, have only background section or have only research methods section. I am having hard time to find an article that has this section and moreover what I must write on here. My project is about Bluetooth location tracking and I do have the implementation and evaluation, so it is not something theoretical.

    Read the article

  • Use Extension Methods to find first and last day of the month

    - by Tim Hibbard
    A lot of reports work on data from last month.  It is a nice touch to have these dates pre-populated for your users.  Using extension methods, the code can look cleaner too. Extension Methods: public static class DateHelper { public static DateTime FirstOfTheMonth(this DateTime dt) { return new DateTime(dt.Year, dt.Month, 1); }   public static DateTime LastOfTheMonth(this DateTime dt) { return dt.FirstOfTheMonth().AddMonths(1).AddDays(-1); } } Consuming Code: void Prepopulate() { startDateBox.CurrentlySelectedDate = DateTime.Now.AddMonths(-1).FirstOfTheMonth(); endDateBox.CurrentlySelectedDate = DateTime.Now.AddMonths(-1).LastOfTheMonth(); }

    Read the article

  • Advantages to Multiple Methods over Switch

    - by tandu
    I received a code review from a senior developer today asking "By the way, what is your objection to dispatching functions by way of a switch statement?" I have read in many places about how pumping an argument through switch to call methods is bad OOP, not as extensible, etc. However, I can't really come up with a definitive answer for him. I would like to settle this for myself once and for all. Here are our competing code suggestions (php used as an example, but can apply more universally): class Switch { public function go($arg) { switch ($arg) { case "one": echo "one\n"; break; case "two": echo "two\n"; break; case "three": echo "three\n"; break; default: throw new Exception("Unknown call: $arg"); break; } } } class Oop { public function go_one() { echo "one\n"; } public function go_two() { echo "two\n"; } public function go_three() { echo "three\n"; } public function __call($_, $__) { throw new Exception("Unknown call $_ with arguments: " . print_r($__, true)); } } Part of his argument was "It (switch method) has a much cleaner way of handling default cases than what you have in the generic __call() magic method." I disagree about the cleanliness and in fact prefer call, but I would like to hear what others have to say. Arguments I can come up with in support of Oop scheme: A bit cleaner in terms of the code you have to write (less, easier to read, less keywords to consider) Not all actions delegated to a single method. Not much difference in execution here, but at least the text is more compartmentalized. In the same vein, another method can be added anywhere in the class instead of a specific spot. Methods are namespaced, which is nice. Does not apply here, but consider a case where Switch::go() operated on a member rather than a parameter. You would have to change the member first, then call the method. For Oop you can call the methods independently at any time. Arguments I can come up with in support of Switch scheme: For the sake of argument, cleaner method of dealing with a default (unknown) request Seems less magical, which might make unfamiliar developers feel more comfortable Anyone have anything to add for either side? I'd like to have a good answer for him.

    Read the article

  • How to design 2D collision callback methods?

    - by Ahmed Fakhry
    In a 2D game where you have a lot of possible combination of collision between objects, such as: object A vs object B = object B vs A; object A vs object C = object C vs A; object A vs object D = object D vs A; and so on ... Do we need to create callback methods for all single type of collision? and do we need to create the same method twice? Like, say a bullet hits a wall, now I need a method to penetrate the wall for the wall, and a method to destroy the bullet for the bullet!! At the same time, a bullet can hit many objects in the game, and hence, more different callback methods!!! Is there a design pattern for that?

    Read the article

  • Using extension methods to decrease the surface area of a C# interface

    - by brian_ritchie
    An interface defines a contract to be implemented by one or more classes.  One of the keys to a well-designed interface is defining a very specific range of functionality. The profile of the interface should be limited to a single purpose & should have the minimum methods required to implement this functionality.  Keeping the interface tight will keep those implementing the interface from getting lazy & not implementing it properly.  I've seen too many overly broad interfaces that aren't fully implemented by developers.  Instead, they just throw a NotImplementedException for the method they didn't implement. One way to help with this issue, is by using extension methods to move overloaded method definitions outside of the interface. Consider the following example: .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: Consolas, "Courier New", Courier, Monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } 1: public interface IFileTransfer 2: { 3: void SendFile(Stream stream, Uri destination); 4: } 5:   6: public static class IFileTransferExtension 7: { 8: public static void SendFile(this IFileTransfer transfer, 9: string Filename, Uri destination) 10: { 11: using (var fs = File.OpenRead(Filename)) 12: { 13: transfer.SendFile(fs, destination); 14: } 15: } 16: } 17:   18: public static class TestIFileTransfer 19: { 20: static void Main() 21: { 22: IFileTransfer transfer = new FTPFileTransfer("user", "pass"); 23: transfer.SendFile(filename, new Uri("ftp://ftp.test.com")); 24: } 25: } In this example, you may have a number of overloads that uses different mechanisms for specifying the source file. The great part is, you don't need to implement these methods on each of your derived classes.  This gives you a better interface and better code reuse.

    Read the article

  • using static methods and classes

    - by vedant1811
    I know that static methods/variables are associated with the class and not the objects of the class and are useful in situations when we need to keep count of, say the number of objects of the class that were created. Non-static members on the other hand may need to work on the specific object (i.e. to use the variables initialized by the constructor) My question what should we do when we need neither of the functionalities? Say I just need a utility function that accepts value(s) and returns a value besed solely on the values passed. I want to know whether such methods should be static or not. How is programming efficiency affected and which is a better coding practice/convention and why. PS: I don't want to spark off a debate, I just want a subjective answer and/or references.

    Read the article

  • Identifying methods with a specified Id in D [migrated]

    - by Ekyo777
    I want to have specific methods with a specific pattern recognized at compile time and registered along with a specified id trough mixins in a parent class. ex.: take a method 'X' from a class with a predetermined id:5, what I want is that, in a mixin in a parent class, method X will be registered as a delegate with its id to be called later on by its id. What would be the best way to specify the Id considering I want the id to be of type int and only the specified methods to be registered? should I (if it is even possible) do it with a custom annotation pretty much like the @property but with an argument, like: @autoregister(id) void method(...) if it is possible to do it this way, an example or a link to the documentation on how to do it would be nice since I didn't find it in the documentation.

    Read the article

  • Anonymous methods/functions: a fundamental feature or a violation of OO principles?

    - by RD1
    Is the recent movement towards anonymous methods/functions by mainstream languages like perl and C# something important, or a weird feature that violates OO principles? Are recent libraries like the most recent version of Intel's Thread Building Blocks and Microsofts PPL and Linq that depend on such things a good thing, or not? Are languages that currently reject anonymous methods/functions, like Java, making wise choices in sticking with a purely OO model, or are they falling behind by lacking a fundamental programming feature?

    Read the article

  • How to extend methods to a class not to its instances.

    - by Fraga
    Hi. Extending methods to any instance is really easy: public static string LeaveJustNumbers(this string text) { return Regex.Replace(text, @"[\D]", ""); } ... string JustNumbers = "A5gfb343j4".LeaveJustNumber(); But what if i want to extend methods to a sealed class like string, to work like: string.Format("Hi:{0}","Fraga"); Is there any way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Will methods like POST and GET formally evolve someday?

    - by Jorge
    The question may sound a bit naive or stupid, but i was wondering...will POST and GET evolve someday? What other methods exist besides those two? I was wondering specifically about server-pushes... why can't exist a method specifically for that? I don't even know if there's already something similar, and if there is, i apologize for my ignorance. The web is evolving, that's evident...will methods formally evolve too?

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods - IsNull and IsNotNull, good or bad use?

    - by Jaimal Chohan
    I like readability. So, I came up with an extension mothod a few minutes ago for the (x =! null) type syntax, called IsNotNull. Inversly, I also created a IsNull extension method, thus if(x == null) becomes if(x.IsNull()) and if(x != null) becomes if(x.IsNotNull()) However, I'm worried I might be abusing extension methods. Do you think that this is bad use of Extenion methods?

    Read the article

  • How do you manage the namespaces of your extension methods?

    - by Robert Harvey
    Do you use a global, catchall namespace for all of your extension methods, or do you put the extension methods in the same namespace as the class(es) they extend? Or do you use some other method, like an application or library-specific namespace? EDIT: I ask because I have a need to extend System.Security.Principal.IIdentity, and putting the extension method in the System.Security.Principal namespace seems to make sense, but I've never seen it done this way.

    Read the article

  • Python: When passing variables between methods, is it necessary to assign it a new name?

    - by Anthony
    I'm thinking that the answer is probably 'no' if the program is small and there are a lot of methods, but what about in a larger program? If I am going to be using one variable in multiple methods throughout the program, is it smarter to: Come up with a different phrasing for each method (to eliminate naming conflicts). Use the same name for each method (to eliminate confusion) Just use a global variable (to eliminate both) This is more of a stylistic question than anything else. What naming convention do YOU use when passing variables?

    Read the article

  • Given a PHP class would be the best and simplest way to override one or two of its methods with one

    - by racl101
    Here's the objective. I have a PHP class and there are one or two of its methods that I would like to override with my own. As I understand OOP (in PHP and in general) I could write a child class that extends it and overrides the functionality of the methods in question. However, I was wondering if this is the best way of achieving this task and if this is a proper use for child classes or if there is something better in PHP for what I'm trying to do.

    Read the article

  • SSH Public Key - No supported authentication methods available (server sent public key)

    - by F21
    I have a 12.10 server setup in a virtual machine with its network set to bridged (essentially will be seen as a computer connected to my switch). I installed opensshd via apt-get and was able to connect to the server using putty with my username and password. I then set about trying to get it to use public/private key authentication. I did the following: Generated the keys using PuttyGen. Moved the public key to /etc/ssh/myusername/authorized_keys (I am using encrypted home directories). Set up sshd_config like so: PubkeyAuthentication yes AuthorizedKeysFile /etc/ssh/%u/authorized_keys StrictModes no PasswordAuthentication no UsePAM yes When I connect using putty or WinSCP, I get an error saying No supported authentication methods available (server sent public key). If I run sshd in debug mode, I see: PAM: initializing for "username" PAM: setting PAM_RHOST to "192.168.1.7" PAM: setting PAM_TTY to "ssh" userauth-request for user username service ssh-connection method publickey [preauth] attempt 1 failures 0 [preauth] test whether pkalg/pkblob are acceptable [preauth[ Checking blacklist file /usr/share/ssh/blacklist.RSA-1023 Checking blacklist file /etc/ssh/blacklist.RSA-1023 temporarily_use_uid: 1000/1000 (e=0/0) trying public key file /etc/ssh/username/authorized_keys fd4 clearing O_NONBLOCK restore_uid: 0/0 Failed publickey for username from 192.168.1.7 port 14343 ssh2 Received disconnect from 192.168.1.7: 14: No supported authentication methods available [preauth] do_cleanup [preauth] monitor_read_log: child log fd closed do_cleanup PAM: cleanup Why is this happening and how can I fix this?

    Read the article

  • The Most Effective Learning Methods – The Results

    - by BuckWoody
    Yesterday I posted a blank graph and asked where you thought the labels should go for the most effective learning methods, according to a study they read to me and other teachers here at the University of Washington. Here are the labels in the correct order according to that study – and remember, “Teaching” here means one student explaining something to another: It isn’t really that surprising to learn that we comprehend best when we have to teach a subject to someone else, and you can see that the “participation factor” is the key in the learning methods. The real shocker was the retention level at the various learning modes – lecture was down near the single digits! What does this have to do with databases or the DBA? Well, we all need to learn new things – and many of us are asked to teach others a new task. To be a good teacher, we have to know how a student learns best – and of course that makes us better students as well. So next time you’re asked to transfer some knowledge to someone else, take a look at this chart first – and let me know how it affected your knowledge transfer. Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Fun With Enum Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again lets dive into the Little Wonders of .NET, those small things in the .NET languages and BCL classes that make development easier by increasing readability, maintainability, and/or performance. So probably every one of us has used an enumerated type at one time or another in a C# program.  The enumerated types we create are a great way to represent that a value can be one of a set of discrete values (or a combination of those values in the case of bit flags). But the power of enum types go far beyond simple assignment and comparison, there are many methods in the Enum class (that all enum types “inherit” from) that can give you even more power when dealing with them. IsDefined() – check if a given value exists in the enum Are you reading a value for an enum from a data source, but are unsure if it is actually a valid value or not?  Casting won’t tell you this, and Parse() isn’t guaranteed to balk either if you give it an int or a combination of flags.  So what can we do? Let’s assume we have a small enum like this for result codes we want to return back from our business logic layer: 1: public enum ResultCode 2: { 3: Success, 4: Warning, 5: Error 6: } In this enum, Success will be zero (unless given another value explicitly), Warning will be one, and Error will be two. So what happens if we have code like this where perhaps we’re getting the result code from another data source (could be database, could be web service, etc)? 1: public ResultCode PerformAction() 2: { 3: // set up and call some method that returns an int. 4: int result = ResultCodeFromDataSource(); 5:  6: // this will suceed even if result is < 0 or > 2. 7: return (ResultCode) result; 8: } So what happens if result is –1 or 4?  Well, the cast does not fail, so what we end up with would be an instance of a ResultCode that would have a value that’s outside of the bounds of the enum constants we defined. This means if you had a block of code like: 1: switch (result) 2: { 3: case ResultType.Success: 4: // do success stuff 5: break; 6:  7: case ResultType.Warning: 8: // do warning stuff 9: break; 10:  11: case ResultType.Error: 12: // do error stuff 13: break; 14: } That you would hit none of these blocks (which is a good argument for always having a default in a switch by the way). So what can you do?  Well, there is a handy static method called IsDefined() on the Enum class which will tell you if an enum value is defined.  1: public ResultCode PerformAction() 2: { 3: int result = ResultCodeFromDataSource(); 4:  5: if (!Enum.IsDefined(typeof(ResultCode), result)) 6: { 7: throw new InvalidOperationException("Enum out of range."); 8: } 9:  10: return (ResultCode) result; 11: } In fact, this is often recommended after you Parse() or cast a value to an enum as there are ways for values to get past these methods that may not be defined. If you don’t like the syntax of passing in the type of the enum, you could clean it up a bit by creating an extension method instead that would allow you to call IsDefined() off any isntance of the enum: 1: public static class EnumExtensions 2: { 3: // helper method that tells you if an enum value is defined for it's enumeration 4: public static bool IsDefined(this Enum value) 5: { 6: return Enum.IsDefined(value.GetType(), value); 7: } 8: }   HasFlag() – an easier way to see if a bit (or bits) are set Most of us who came from the land of C programming have had to deal extensively with bit flags many times in our lives.  As such, using bit flags may be almost second nature (for a quick refresher on bit flags in enum types see one of my old posts here). However, in higher-level languages like C#, the need to manipulate individual bit flags is somewhat diminished, and the code to check for bit flag enum values may be obvious to an advanced developer but cryptic to a novice developer. For example, let’s say you have an enum for a messaging platform that contains bit flags: 1: // usually, we pluralize flags enum type names 2: [Flags] 3: public enum MessagingOptions 4: { 5: None = 0, 6: Buffered = 0x01, 7: Persistent = 0x02, 8: Durable = 0x04, 9: Broadcast = 0x08 10: } We can combine these bit flags using the bitwise OR operator (the ‘|’ pipe character): 1: // combine bit flags using 2: var myMessenger = new Messenger(MessagingOptions.Buffered | MessagingOptions.Broadcast); Now, if we wanted to check the flags, we’d have to test then using the bit-wise AND operator (the ‘&’ character): 1: if ((options & MessagingOptions.Buffered) == MessagingOptions.Buffered) 2: { 3: // do code to set up buffering... 4: // ... 5: } While the ‘|’ for combining flags is easy enough to read for advanced developers, the ‘&’ test tends to be easy for novice developers to get wrong.  First of all you have to AND the flag combination with the value, and then typically you should test against the flag combination itself (and not just for a non-zero)!  This is because the flag combination you are testing with may combine multiple bits, in which case if only one bit is set, the result will be non-zero but not necessarily all desired bits! Thanks goodness in .NET 4.0 they gave us the HasFlag() method.  This method can be called from an enum instance to test to see if a flag is set, and best of all you can avoid writing the bit wise logic yourself.  Not to mention it will be more readable to a novice developer as well: 1: if (options.HasFlag(MessagingOptions.Buffered)) 2: { 3: // do code to set up buffering... 4: // ... 5: } It is much more concise and unambiguous, thus increasing your maintainability and readability. It would be nice to have a corresponding SetFlag() method, but unfortunately generic types don’t allow you to specialize on Enum, which makes it a bit more difficult.  It can be done but you have to do some conversions to numeric and then back to the enum which makes it less of a payoff than having the HasFlag() method.  But if you want to create it for symmetry, it would look something like this: 1: public static T SetFlag<T>(this Enum value, T flags) 2: { 3: if (!value.GetType().IsEquivalentTo(typeof(T))) 4: { 5: throw new ArgumentException("Enum value and flags types don't match."); 6: } 7:  8: // yes this is ugly, but unfortunately we need to use an intermediate boxing cast 9: return (T)Enum.ToObject(typeof (T), Convert.ToUInt64(value) | Convert.ToUInt64(flags)); 10: } Note that since the enum types are value types, we need to assign the result to something (much like string.Trim()).  Also, you could chain several SetFlag() operations together or create one that takes a variable arg list if desired. Parse() and ToString() – transitioning from string to enum and back Sometimes, you may want to be able to parse an enum from a string or convert it to a string - Enum has methods built in to let you do this.  Now, many may already know this, but may not appreciate how much power are in these two methods. For example, if you want to parse a string as an enum, it’s easy and works just like you’d expect from the numeric types: 1: string optionsString = "Persistent"; 2:  3: // can use Enum.Parse, which throws if finds something it doesn't like... 4: var result = (MessagingOptions)Enum.Parse(typeof (MessagingOptions), optionsString); 5:  6: if (result == MessagingOptions.Persistent) 7: { 8: Console.WriteLine("It worked!"); 9: } Note that Enum.Parse() will throw if it finds a value it doesn’t like.  But the values it likes are fairly flexible!  You can pass in a single value, or a comma separated list of values for flags and it will parse them all and set all bits: 1: // for string values, can have one, or comma separated. 2: string optionsString = "Persistent, Buffered"; 3:  4: var result = (MessagingOptions)Enum.Parse(typeof (MessagingOptions), optionsString); 5:  6: if (result.HasFlag(MessagingOptions.Persistent) && result.HasFlag(MessagingOptions.Buffered)) 7: { 8: Console.WriteLine("It worked!"); 9: } Or you can parse in a string containing a number that represents a single value or combination of values to set: 1: // 3 is the combination of Buffered (0x01) and Persistent (0x02) 2: var optionsString = "3"; 3:  4: var result = (MessagingOptions) Enum.Parse(typeof (MessagingOptions), optionsString); 5:  6: if (result.HasFlag(MessagingOptions.Persistent) && result.HasFlag(MessagingOptions.Buffered)) 7: { 8: Console.WriteLine("It worked again!"); 9: } And, if you really aren’t sure if the parse will work, and don’t want to handle an exception, you can use TryParse() instead: 1: string optionsString = "Persistent, Buffered"; 2: MessagingOptions result; 3:  4: // try parse returns true if successful, and takes an out parm for the result 5: if (Enum.TryParse(optionsString, out result)) 6: { 7: if (result.HasFlag(MessagingOptions.Persistent) && result.HasFlag(MessagingOptions.Buffered)) 8: { 9: Console.WriteLine("It worked!"); 10: } 11: } So we covered parsing a string to an enum, what about reversing that and converting an enum to a string?  The ToString() method is the obvious and most basic choice for most of us, but did you know you can pass a format string for enum types that dictate how they are written as a string?: 1: MessagingOptions value = MessagingOptions.Buffered | MessagingOptions.Persistent; 2:  3: // general format, which is the default, 4: Console.WriteLine("Default : " + value); 5: Console.WriteLine("G (default): " + value.ToString("G")); 6:  7: // Flags format, even if type does not have Flags attribute. 8: Console.WriteLine("F (flags) : " + value.ToString("F")); 9:  10: // integer format, value as number. 11: Console.WriteLine("D (num) : " + value.ToString("D")); 12:  13: // hex format, value as hex 14: Console.WriteLine("X (hex) : " + value.ToString("X")); Which displays: 1: Default : Buffered, Persistent 2: G (default): Buffered, Persistent 3: F (flags) : Buffered, Persistent 4: D (num) : 3 5: X (hex) : 00000003 Now, you may not really see a difference here between G and F because I used a [Flags] enum, the difference is that the “F” option treats the enum as if it were flags even if the [Flags] attribute is not present.  Let’s take a non-flags enum like the ResultCode used earlier: 1: // yes, we can do this even if it is not [Flags] enum. 2: ResultCode value = ResultCode.Warning | ResultCode.Error; And if we run that through the same formats again we get: 1: Default : 3 2: G (default): 3 3: F (flags) : Warning, Error 4: D (num) : 3 5: X (hex) : 00000003 Notice that since we had multiple values combined, but it was not a [Flags] marked enum, the G and default format gave us a number instead of a value name.  This is because the value was not a valid single-value constant of the enum.  However, using the F flags format string, it broke out the value into its component flags even though it wasn’t marked [Flags]. So, if you want to get an enum to display appropriately for whether or not it has the [Flags] attribute, use G which is the default.  If you always want it to attempt to break down the flags, use F.  For numeric output, obviously D or  X are the best choice depending on whether you want decimal or hex. Summary Hopefully, you learned a couple of new tricks with using the Enum class today!  I’ll add more little wonders as I think of them and thanks for all the invaluable input!   Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Little Wonders,Enum,BlackRabbitCoder

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >