We value your feedback.
Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!
Course Of The Month
11 days, 4 hours left to enrollBecome a Premium Member and unlock a new, free course in leading technologies each month.
Solved
Generics in C#
Posted on 2011-03-07
I am coming accross a very interesting problem.
I have the following classes defined as follows:
public class classA
{
public int Type {get;set;}
public MyCollection<T> MyCol {get;set;}
//other properties and methods
}
public class TypeA
{
//class definition
}
public class TypeB
{
//class definition
}
public class TypeC
{
//class definition
}
the problem is that I want MyCollection<T> to hold either TypeA, TypeB or TypeC depending on the value in classA.Type when instantiating classA.
I found a way to build a generic collection that can hold any of the three class but the problem is tyhat when I am defining MyCol property for classA I have to pick a specific class (classA, classB or classC)
Any idea??
I have the following classes defined as follows:
public class classA
{
public int Type {get;set;}
public MyCollection<T> MyCol {get;set;}
//other properties and methods
}
public class TypeA
{
//class definition
}
public class TypeB
{
//class definition
}
public class TypeC
{
//class definition
}
the problem is that I want MyCollection<T> to hold either TypeA, TypeB or TypeC depending on the value in classA.Type when instantiating classA.
I found a way to build a generic collection that can hold any of the three class but the problem is tyhat when I am defining MyCol property for classA I have to pick a specific class (classA, classB or classC)
Any idea??
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange
Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.
- Help others & share knowledge
- Earn cash & points
- Learn & ask questions
-
4
-
3
2- +1
10 Comments
I think generics won't help you here, because you are changing the type returned by public MyCollection<T> MyCol {get;set;} at run-time.
If TypeA, TypeB, and TypeC are similar classes with the same methods / properties, you could create an interface (for example, MyInterface) and have TypeA, TypeB, and TypeC implement it. Then you could have public MyCollection<MyInterface> MyCol {get;set;}. Otherwise, the only thing you can return is probably MyCollection<object>.
If TypeA, TypeB, and TypeC are similar classes with the same methods / properties, you could create an interface (for example, MyInterface) and have TypeA, TypeB, and TypeC implement it. Then you could have public MyCollection<MyInterface> MyCol {get;set;}. Otherwise, the only thing you can return is probably MyCollection<object>.
My understanding is that generics allow you to write code that will accept any type. You still have to define that type at some point otherwise how can the compiler know how to compile it?
If the object have similarities, you'd probably be better off defining this in an interface and implementing it in your child objects (as wdosanjos mentions above).
If the object have similarities, you'd probably be better off defining this in an interface and implementing it in your child objects (as wdosanjos mentions above).
You could still do it of course, at the expense of a meaningful object structure. Not really how generics are supposed to be used, but it could be done... * shudders *
You can still use generics but implement each instance as type object. In the generic code though, you'd need to write code to handle each type.
Again, this would be slightly contradictory as to how generics are supposed to work.
Again, this would be slightly contradictory as to how generics are supposed to work.
Just use a collection of Object. When you need to access your items, do a test to see if current Object is an instance of TypeA TypeB or TypeC and cast it accordingly.
Also, you could have an empty base class (let's say MyTypes) and make each of your classes derive from MyTypes. Then, make your collection of type MyTypes.
Also, you could have an empty base class (let's say MyTypes) and make each of your classes derive from MyTypes. Then, make your collection of type MyTypes.
I'd just question why you're trying to shoehorn all these types into using the same code when all you're going to have to do is to write casts to pick them out anyway.
Unless this is just an academic exercise...
Unless this is just an academic exercise...
It depends on the intended use of these classes. Here is a possible approach (sample runs as a console app):
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace Test
{
public class ClassA
{
private int _type;
public int Type
{
get { return _type; }
set
{
_type = value;
switch (_type)
{
case 1: MyCol = new List<TypeA>(); break;
case 2: MyCol = new List<TypeB>(); break;
case 3: MyCol = new List<TypeC>(); break;
default: MyCol = null; break;
}
}
}
public IList MyCol { get; set; }
public IList<TypeA> MyColA { get { return (MyCol as List<TypeA>); } }
public IList<TypeB> MyColB { get { return (MyCol as List<TypeB>); } }
public IList<TypeC> MyColC { get { return (MyCol as List<TypeC>); } }
//other properties and methods
}
public class TypeA
{
//class definition
}
public class TypeB
{
//class definition
}
public class TypeC
{
//class definition
}
// Test class
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var a = new ClassA();
a.Type = 1;// a.MyCol is now of List<TypeA>
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeA());
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeA());
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeA());
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeA());
foreach (var n in a.MyCol)
{
Console.WriteLine(n);
}
Console.WriteLine(a.MyColA);
Console.WriteLine(a.MyColB); // return null, since a.MyCol is a List<TypeA>
Console.WriteLine(a.MyColC); // return null, since a.MyCol is a List<TypeA>
try
{
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeB()); // this will throw an exception
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
a.Type = 2; // a.MyCol is now of List<TypeB>
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeB()); // this will not throw an exception
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeB());
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeB());
a.MyCol.Add(new TypeB());
foreach (var n in a.MyCol)
{
Console.WriteLine(n);
}
Console.WriteLine(a.MyColA); // return null, since a.MyCol is a List<TypeB>
Console.WriteLine(a.MyColB);
Console.WriteLine(a.MyColC); // return null, since a.MyCol is a List<TypeB>
}
}
}
Featured Post
For Any Use & On Any Platform
Contextual Guidance at the moment of need helps your employees/users adopt software o& achieve even the most complex tasks instantly. Boost knowledge retention, software adoption & employee engagement with easy solution.
Question has a verified solution.
If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question
More often than not, we developers are confronted with a need: a need to make some kind of magic happen via code. Whether it is for a client, for the boss, or for our own personal projects, the need must be satisfied. Most of the time, the Framework…
Today I had a very interesting conundrum that had to get solved quickly. Needless to say, it wasn't resolved quickly because when we needed it we were very rushed, but as soon as the conference call was over and I took a step back I saw the correct …
In this video, viewers will be given step by step instructions on adjusting mouse, pointer and cursor visibility in Microsoft Windows 10. The video seeks to educate those who are struggling with the new Windows 10 Graphical User Interface.
Change Cu…
Sometimes it takes a new vantage point, apart from our everyday security practices, to truly see our Active Directory (AD) vulnerabilities. We get used to implementing the same techniques and checking the same areas for a breach. This pattern can re…
Suggested Courses
Earn Certification
HTML5 Specialist - Certification
Free withPremium
Course of the Month11 days, 4 hours left to enroll
632 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.
Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.