If you have a Vendor with a list of Contacts, in DDD which is the better approach for adding a contact to a Vendor?
Here's some sample C# code using a CQRS command.
Given the following command, how should we implement adding a Contact to a Vendor
AddVendorContactCommand()
{
string vendorId;
string contactName;
}
Should we add a contact through the Vendor:
AddVendorContactHandler(AddVendorContactCommand command)
{
var vendor = await dbContext.Vendors.FindAsync(command.vendorId);
vendor.AddContact(command.contactName);
dbContext.Save();
//doesn't require a dbSet for VendorContacts???
}
Or should we reference the VendorContact and bypass the Vendor entirely.
AddVendorContactHandler(AddVendorContactCommand command)
{
//handler
var newVendorContact = new VendorContact(command.vendorId, command.contactName);
dbContext.VendorContacts.Add(newVendorContact);
dbContext.Save();
//requires a dbSet for VendorContacts;
}
I feel like the better approach is to go through the Vendor, but that requires our AddVendorContactCommand to read from the database first. In CQRS Commands, it generally suggests avoid reads. The second approach to use VendorContacts directly will have higher performance than if we go through Vendor.
Argument to go through the Vendor are the following:
What if the Vendor doesn't exist
What if the Vendor isn't allowed any more contacts.
What if the Vendor is deleted, disabled or otherwise readonly
What's the correct DDD approach?
First, as a developer, I'm obligated to say there is no single correct approach to anything.
Now that is out of the way, given the information you have provided, I'm going to assume that the Vendor entity you described can (and in my opinion should) be the Aggregate Root. With that in mind, I would definitely go with the first option you described.
I think you have a misconception about CQRS Commands. It is perfectly fine to get data from the database inside commands. The thing you have to avoid is fetching the data from the query side, which could be a totally different database.
You are also correct, you won't need a DbSet<> for VendorContact entity, and you should keep it that way on the Command side, as you want to protect the invariants inside your Vendor Aggregate Root.
#WebInitParam is an annotation that goes at class level.
It defines initialization parameters for the servlet.
I would like to know, what is the difference between doing this and using static variables, and why do it the #WebInitParam way rather than using statics?
What does defining k/v pairs as #WebInitParams allow you to do that you couldn't do if you declared static variables instead?
I have looked and all I can find is a million people saying how to define #WebInitParams. Well yes that's the easy bit. It's what I can do with that that is really what is of interest.
Thanks very much.
From a "raison d'etre" perspective, the annotation exists as a better design and architecture alternative to just peppering a class with static fields. #WebInitParam is a self-documenting approach to the initialization parameters a servlet or filter class needs, available via web.xml as well. It serves this purpose for the end developers as well as the JavaEE platform as a whole.
Think about it this way: in a vanilla project, you have the option of hardcoding a bunch of parameters in the class as static fields, or defining the same parameters in a property file. Which would you pick? Under what circumstances?
From a purely functional angle, apart from the function of using the annotation to override defaults set in web.xml, one other major reason is that you will sometimes need to get a hold of those initialization parameters from another component in your application. Using the annotation essentially increases the visibility of the parameter. In JSF for example, the API allows you to retrieve FacesServlet initialization parameters with:
//get all the parameters
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getInitParameterMap()
//get a specific parameter
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getInitParameter("aParameter");
In JSF-2.3 , it gets even more convenient with the following CDI-enabled injection:
#InitParameterMap Map<String,String> servletParameterMap;
Bear in mind that because it's CDI, it means this facility is available throughout the JavaEE platform, not just in web applications/JSF.
It's going to be a hassle to retrieve init parameters if the only mechanism available is a static field in the servlet class - you'll need to obtain an instance of the filter or servlet to get the static fields in it.
Separately, one could make the argument that maybe one should favour context-params over servlet-params because then, you get even more flexibility that isn't tied to any given servlet. That's a separate matter entirely :)
this is one of the few moments I couldn't find the same question that I have at this place so I'm trying to describe my problem and hope to get some help an ideas!
Let's say...
I want to design a RESTful API for a domain model, that might have entities/resources like the following:
class Product
{
String id;
String name;
Price price;
Set<Tag> tags;
}
class Price
{
String id;
String currency;
float amount;
}
class Tag
{
String id;
String name;
}
The API might look like:
GET /products
GET /products/<product-id>
PUT /prices/<price-id>?currency=EUR&amount=12.34
PATCH /products/<product-id>?name=updateOnlyName
When it comes to updating references:
PATCH /products/<product-id>?price=<price-id>
PATCH /products/<product-id>?price=
may set the Products' Price-reference to another existing Price, or delete this reference.
But how can I add a new reference of an existing Tag to a Product?
If I wanted to store that reference in a relational database, I needed a relationship table 'products_tags' for that many-to-many-relationship, which brings us to a clear solution:
POST /product_tags [product: <product-id>, tag: <tag-id>]
But a document-based NoSQL database (like MongoDB) could store this as a one-to-many-relationship for each Product, so I don't need to model a 'new resource' that has to be created to save a relationship.
But
POST /products/<product-id>/tags/ [name: ...]
creates a new Tag (in a Product),
PUT /products/<product-id>/tags/<tag-id>?name=
creates a new Tag with <tag-id> or replaces an existing
Tag with the same id (in a Product),
PATCH /products/<product-id>?tags=<tag-id>
sets the Tag-list and doesn't add a new Tag, and
PATCH /products/<product-id>/tags/<tag-id>?name=...
sets a certain attribute of a Tag.
So I might want to say something link this:
ATTACH /products/<product-id>?tags=<tag-id>
ATTACH /products/<product-id>/tags?tag=<tag-id>
So the point is:
I don't want to create a new resource,
I don't want to set the attribute of a resource, but
I want to ADD a resource to another resources attribute, which is a set. ^^
Since everything is about resources, one could say:
I want to ATTACH a resource to another.
My question: Which Method is the right one and how should the URL look like?
Your REST is an application state driver, not aimed to be reflection of your entity relationships.
As such, there's no 'if this was the case in the db' in REST. That said, you have pretty good URIs.
You talk about IDs. What is a tag? Isn't a tag a simple string? Why does it have an id? Why isn't its id its namestring?
Why not have PUT /products/<product-id>/tags/tag_name=?
PUT is idempotent, so you are basically asserting the existance of a tag for the product referred to by product-id. If you send this request multiple times, you'd get 201 Created the first time and 200 OK the next time.
If you are building a simple system with a single concurrent user running on a single web server with no concurrency in requests, you may stop reading now
If someone in between goes and deletes that tag, your next put request would re-create the tag. Is this what you want?
With optimistic concurrency control, you would pass along the ETag a of the document everytime, and return 409 Conflict if you have a newer version b on the server and the diff, a..b cannot be reconciled. In the case of tags, you are just using PUT and DELETE verbs; so you wouldn't have to diff/look at reconciliation.
If you are building a moderately advanced concurrent system, with first-writer-wins semantics, running on a single sever, you can stop reading now
That said, I don't think you have considered your transactional boundaries. What are you modifying? A resource? No, you are modifying value objects of the product resource; its tags. So then, according to your model of resources, you should be using PATCH. Do you care about concurrency? Well, then you have much more to think about with regards to PATCH:
How do you represent the diff of a hierarchial JSON object?
How do you know what PATCH requests that conflict in a semantic way - i.e. we may not care about DELETEs on Tags, but two other properties might interact semantically.
The RFC for HTTP PATCH says this:
With PATCH, however, the enclosed entity contains a set of
instructions describing how a resource currently residing on the
origin server should be modified to produce a new version. The PATCH
method affects the resource identified by the Request-URI, and it also
MAY have side effects on other resources; i.e., new resources may be
created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH.
PATCH is neither safe nor idempotent as defined by [RFC2616], Section
9.1.
I'm probably going to stop putting strange ideas in your head now. Comment if you want me to continue down this path a bit longer ;). Suffice to say that there are many more considerations that can be done.
I have a requirement to keep a history of values of some fields in an EF4 ASP.NET MVC3 application. This just needs to be a log file of sorts, log the user, datetime, tablename, fieldname, oldvalue, newvalue.
Although it would be pretty easy to code this in various save routines, I'm wondering if I can get global coverage by wiring it into some sort of dataannotation, so that I can perhaps declare
[KeepHistory()]
public string Surname { get; set; }
in my partial class (I'm using POCO but generated from a T4 template).
So Questions
1) Is this a bad idea ? I'm basically proposing to side-effect changes to an entity, not directly referenced by the code, as a result of an annotation.
2) Can it be done ? Will I have access to the right context to tie up with my unit of work so that changes get saved or dropped with the context save?
3) Is there a better way?
4) If you suggest I do this, any pointers would be appreciated - everything I've read is for validation, which may not be the best starting point.
Actually, validation might be a good starting point. Since an attribute does not know about which property or class it was assigned to, but a validation-attribute gets called by the validation framework with all the necessary informátion. If you implement the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.ValidationAttribute class you can override the IsValid(object, ValidationContext) method, which gives you the actual value of the property, the name of the property and the container.
This might take a lot of work, since you need to get to the currently logged-in user etc. I'm guessing that the .NET implementation provides some sort of caching for the specific attributes on an entity type, which would be a pain to implement by yourself.
Another way, would be to use the ObjectStateManager exposed by your EF ObjectContext, which can provide you with the ObjectStateEntry-objects for all entities of a given state. See the
ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntries(EntityState) method, for more information about how to call it (and when). The ObjectStateEntry actually contains a record of the original and current-values, which can be compared to find any changes made within the lifetime of the current ObjectContext.
You might consider using the ObjectStateManager to inject your custom logging behavior, while this behavior decides based on property-attributes which change should be logged.
I come from low level languages - C++ is the highest level I program in.
Recently I came across Reflection, and I just cannot fathom how it could be used without code smells.
The idea of inspecting a class/method/function during runtime, in my opinion, points to a flaw in design - I think most problems Reflection (tries to) solve could be used with either Polymorphism or proper use of inheritance.
Am I wrong? Do I misunderstand the concept and utility of Reflection?
I am looking for a good explanation of when to utilize Reflection where other solutions will fail or be too cumbersome to implement as well as when NOT to use it.
Please enlighten this low-level lubber.
Reflection is most commonly used to circumvent the static type system, however it also has some interesting use cases:
Let's write an ORM!
If you're familiar with NHibernate or most other ORMs, you write classes which map to tables in your database, something like this:
// used to hook into the ORMs innards
public class ActiveRecordBase
{
public void Save();
}
public class User : ActiveRecordBase
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
// ...
}
How do you think the Save() method is written? Well, in most ORMs, the Save method doesn't know what fields are in derived classes, but it can access them using reflection.
Its wholly possible to have the same functionality in a type-safe manner, simply by requiring a user to override a method to copy fields into a datarow object, but that would result in lots of boilerplate code and bloat.
Stubs!
Rhino Mocks is a mocking framework. You pass an interface type into a method, and behind the scenes the framework will dynamically construct and instantiate a mock object implementing the interface.
Sure, a programmer could write the boilerplate code for the mock object by hand, but why would she want to if the framework will do it for her?
Metadata!
We can decorate methods with attributes (metadata), which can serve a variety of purposes:
[FilePermission(Context.AllAccess)] // writes things to a file
[Logging(LogMethod.None)] // logger doesn't log this method
[MethodAccessSecurity(Role="Admin")] // user must be in "Admin" group to invoke method
[Validation(ValidationType.NotNull, "reportName")] // throws exception if reportName is null
public void RunDailyReports(string reportName) { ... }
You need to reflect over the method to inspect the attributes. Most AOP frameworks for .NET use attributes for policy injection.
Sure, you can write the same sort of code inline, but this style is more declarative.
Let's make a dependency framework!
Many IoC containers require some degree of reflection to run properly. For example:
public class FileValidator
{
public FileValidator(ILogger logger) { ... }
}
// client code
var validator = IoC.Resolve<FileValidator>();
Our IoC container will instantiate a file validator and pass an appropriate implementation of ILogger into the constructor. Which implementation? That depends on how its implemented.
Let's say that I gave the name of the assembly and class in a configuration file. The language needs to read name of the class as a string and use reflection to instantiate it.
Unless we know the implementation at compile time, there is no type-safe way to instantiate a class based on its name.
Late Binding / Duck Typing
There are all kinds of reasons why you'd want to read the properties of an object at runtime. I'd pick logging as the simplest use case -- let say you were writing a logger which accepts any object and spits out all of its properties to a file.
public static void Log(string msg, object state) { ... }
You could override the Log method for all possible static types, or you could just use reflection to read the properties instead.
Some languages like OCaml and Scala support statically-checked duck-typing (called structural typing), but sometimes you just don't have compile-time knowledge of an objects interface.
Or as Java programmers know, sometimes the type system will get your way and require you to write all kinds of boilerplate code. There's a well-known article which describes how many design patterns are simplified with dynamic typing.
Occasionally circumventing the type system allows you to refactor your code down much further than is possible with static types, resulting in a little bit cleaner code (preferably hidden behind a programmer friendly API :) ). Many modern static languages are adopting the golden rule "static typing where possible, dynamic typing where necessary", allowing users to switch between static and dynamic code.
Projects such as hibernate (O/R mapping) and StructureMap (dependency injection) would be impossible without Reflection. How would one solve these with polymorphism alone?
What makes these problems so difficult to solve any other way is that the libraries don't directly know anything about your class hierarchy - they can't. And yet they need to know the structure of your classes in order to - for example - map an arbitrary row of data from a database to a property in your class using only the name of the field and the name of your property.
Reflection is particularly useful for mapping problems. The idea of convention over code is becoming more and more popular and you need some type of Reflection to do it.
In .NET 3.5+ you have an alternative, which is to use expression trees. These are strongly-typed, and many problems that were classically solved using Reflection have been re-implemented using lambdas and expression trees (see Fluent NHibernate, Ninject). But keep in mind that not every language supports these kinds of constructs; when they're not available, you're basically stuck with Reflection.
In a way (and I hope I'm not ruffling too many feathers with this), Reflection is very often used as a workaround/hack in Object-Oriented languages for features that come for free in Functional languages. As functional languages become more popular, and/or more OO languages start implementing more functional features (like C#), we will most likely start to see Reflection used less and less. But I suspect it will always still be around, for more conventional applications like plugins (as one of the other responders helpfully pointed out).
Actually, you are already using a reflective system everyday: your computer.
Sure, instead of classes, methods and objects, it has programs and files. Programs create and modify files just like methods create and modify objects. But then programs are files themselves, and some programs even inspect or create other programs!
So, why is it so OK for a Linux install to be reflexive that nobody even thinks about it, and scary for OO programs?
I've seen good usages with custom attributes. Such as a database framework.
[DatabaseColumn("UserID")]
[PrimaryKey]
public Int32 UserID { get; set; }
Reflection can then be used to get further information about these fields. I'm pretty sure LINQ To SQL does something similar...
Other examples include test frameworks...
[Test]
public void TestSomething()
{
Assert.AreEqual(5, 10);
}
Without reflection you often have to repeat yourself a lot.
Consider these scenarios:
Run a set of methods e.g. the testXXX() methods in a test case
Generate a list of properties in a gui builder
Make your classes scriptable
Implement a serialization scheme
You can't typically do these things in C/C++ without repeating the whole list of affected methods and properties somewhere else in the code.
In fact C/C++ programmers often use an Interface description language to expose interfaces at runtime (providing a form of reflection).
Judicious use of reflection and annotations combined with well defined coding conventions can avoids rampant code repetition and increase maintainability.
I think that reflection is one of these mechanisms that are powerful but can be easily abused. You're given the tools to become a "power user" for very specific purposes, but it is not meant to replace proper object oriented design (just as object oriented design is not a solution for everything) or to be used lightly.
Because of the way Java is structured, you are already paying the price of representing your class hierarchy in memory at runtime (compare to C++ where you don't pay any costs unless you use things like virtual methods). There is therefore no cost rationale for blocking it fully.
Reflection is useful for things like serialization - things like Hibernate or digester can use it to determine how to best store objects automatically. Similarly, the JavaBeans model is based on names of methods (a questionable decision, I admit), but you need to be able to inspect what properties are available to build things like visual editors. In more recent versions of Java, reflections is what makes annotations useful - you can write tools and do metaprogramming using these entities that exist in the source code but can be accessible at runtime.
It is possible to go through an entire career as a Java programmer and never have to use reflection because the problems that you deal with don't require it. On the other hand, for certain problems, it is quite necessary.
As mentioned above, reflection is mostly used to implement code that needs to deal with arbitrary objects. ORM mappers, for instance, need to instantiate objects from user-defined classes and fill them with values from database rows. The simplest way to achieve this is through reflection.
Actually, you are partially right, reflection is often a code smell. Most of the time you work with your classes and do not need reflection- if you know your types, you are probably sacrificing type safety, performance, readability and everything that's good in this world, needlessly. However, if you are writing libraries, frameworks or generic utilities, you will probably run into situations best handled with reflection.
This is in Java, which is what I'm familiar with. Other languages offer stuff that can be used to achieve the same goals, but in Java, reflection has clear applications for which it's the best (and sometimes, only) solution.
Unit testing software and frameworks like NUnit use reflection to get a list of tests to execute and executes them. They find all the test suites in a module/assembly/binary (in C# these are represented by classes) and all the tests in those suites (in C# these are methods in a class). NUnit also allows you to mark a test with an expected exception in case you're testing for exception contracts.
Without reflection, you'd need to specify somehow what test suites are available and what tests are available in each suite. Also, things like exceptions would need to be tested manually. C++ unit testing frameworks I've seen have used macros to do this, but some things are still manual and this design is restrictive.
Paul Graham has a great essay that may say it best:
Programs that write programs? When
would you ever want to do that? Not
very often, if you think in Cobol. All
the time, if you think in Lisp. It
would be convenient here if I could
give an example of a powerful macro,
and say there! how about that? But if
I did, it would just look like
gibberish to someone who didn't know
Lisp; there isn't room here to explain
everything you'd need to know to
understand what it meant. In Ansi
Common Lisp I tried to move things
along as fast as I could, and even so
I didn't get to macros until page 160.
concluding with . . .
During the years we worked on Viaweb I
read a lot of job descriptions. A new
competitor seemed to emerge out of the
woodwork every month or so. The first
thing I would do, after checking to
see if they had a live online demo,
was look at their job listings. After
a couple years of this I could tell
which companies to worry about and
which not to. The more of an IT flavor
the job descriptions had, the less
dangerous the company was. The safest
kind were the ones that wanted Oracle
experience. You never had to worry
about those. You were also safe if
they said they wanted C++ or Java
developers. If they wanted Perl or
Python programmers, that would be a
bit frightening-- that's starting to
sound like a company where the
technical side, at least, is run by
real hackers. If I had ever seen a job
posting looking for Lisp hackers, I
would have been really worried.
It is all about rapid development.
var myObject = // Something with quite a few properties.
var props = new Dictionary<string, object>();
foreach (var prop in myObject.GetType().GetProperties())
{
props.Add(prop.Name, prop.GetValue(myObject, null);
}
Plugins are a great example.
Tools are another example - inspector tools, build tools, etc.
I will give an example of a c# solution i was given when i started learning.
It contained classes marked with the [Exercise] attribute, each class contained methods which were not implemented (throwing NotImplementedException). The solution also had unit tests which all failed.
The goal was to implement all the methods and pass all the unit tests.
The solution also had a user interface which it would read all class marked with Excercise, and use reflection to generate a user interface.
We were later asked to implement our own methods, and later still to understand how the user interface 'magically' was changed to include all the new methods we implemented.
Extremely useful, but often not well understood.
The idea behind this was to be able to query any GUI objects properties, to provide them in a GUI to get customized and preconfigured. Now it's uses have been extended and proved to be feasible.
EDIT: spelling
It's very useful for dependency injection. You can explore loaded assemblies types implementing a given interface with a given attribute. Combined with proper configuration files, it proves to be a very powerful and clean way of adding new inherited classes without modifying the client code.
Also, if you are doing an editor that doesn't really care about the underlying model but rather on how the objects are structured directly, ala System.Forms.PropertyGrid)
Without reflection no plugin architecture will work!
Very simple example in Python. Suppose you have a class that have 3 methods:
class SomeClass(object):
def methodA(self):
# some code
def methodB(self):
# some code
def methodC(self):
# some code
Now, in some other class you want to decorate those methods with some additional behaviour (i.e. you want that class to mimic SomeClass, but with an additional functionality).
This is as simple as:
class SomeOtherClass(object):
def __getattr__(self, attr_name):
# do something nice and then call method that caller requested
getattr(self.someclass_instance, attr_name)()
With reflection, you can write a small amount of domain independent code that doesn't need to change often versus writing a lot more domain dependent code that needs to change more frequently (such as when properties are added/removed). With established conventions in your project, you can perform common functions based on the presence of certain properties, attributes, etc. Data transformation of objects between different domains is one example where reflection really comes in handy.
Or a more simple example within a domain, where you want to transform data from the database to data objects without needing to modify the transformation code when properties change, so long as conventions are maintained (in this case matching property names and a specific attribute):
///--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/// <summary>Transform data from the input data reader into the output object. Each
/// element to be transformed must have the DataElement attribute associated with
/// it.</summary>
///
/// <param name="inputReader">The database reader with the input data.</param>
/// <param name="outputObject">The output object to be populated with the input data.</param>
/// <param name="filterElements">Data elements to filter out of the transformation.</param>
///--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
public static void TransformDataFromDbReader(DbDataReader inputReader, IDataObject outputObject, NameObjectCollection filterElements)
{
try
{
// add all public properties with the DataElement attribute to the output object
foreach (PropertyInfo loopInfo in outputObject.GetType().GetProperties())
{
foreach (object loopAttribute in loopInfo.GetCustomAttributes(true))
{
if (loopAttribute is DataElementAttribute)
{
// get name of property to transform
string transformName = DataHelper.GetString(((DataElementAttribute)loopAttribute).ElementName).Trim().ToLower();
if (transformName == String.Empty)
{
transformName = loopInfo.Name.Trim().ToLower();
}
// do transform if not in filter field list
if (filterElements == null || DataHelper.GetString(filterElements[transformName]) == String.Empty)
{
for (int i = 0; i < inputReader.FieldCount; i++)
{
if (inputReader.GetName(i).Trim().ToLower() == transformName)
{
// set value, based on system type
loopInfo.SetValue(outputObject, DataHelper.GetValueFromSystemType(inputReader[i], loopInfo.PropertyType.UnderlyingSystemType.FullName, false), null);
}
}
}
}
}
}
// add all fields with the DataElement attribute to the output object
foreach (FieldInfo loopInfo in outputObject.GetType().GetFields(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.GetField | BindingFlags.Instance))
{
foreach (object loopAttribute in loopInfo.GetCustomAttributes(true))
{
if (loopAttribute is DataElementAttribute)
{
// get name of field to transform
string transformName = DataHelper.GetString(((DataElementAttribute)loopAttribute).ElementName).Trim().ToLower();
if (transformName == String.Empty)
{
transformName = loopInfo.Name.Trim().ToLower();
}
// do transform if not in filter field list
if (filterElements == null || DataHelper.GetString(filterElements[transformName]) == String.Empty)
{
for (int i = 0; i < inputReader.FieldCount; i++)
{
if (inputReader.GetName(i).Trim().ToLower() == transformName)
{
// set value, based on system type
loopInfo.SetValue(outputObject, DataHelper.GetValueFromSystemType(inputReader[i], loopInfo.FieldType.UnderlyingSystemType.FullName, false));
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
bool reThrow = ExceptionHandler.HandleException(ex);
if (reThrow) throw;
}
}
One usage not yet mentioned: while reflection is generally thought of as "slow", it's possible to use Reflection to improve the efficiency of code which uses interfaces like IEquatable<T> when they exist, and uses other means of checking equality when they do not. In the absence of reflection, code that wanted to test whether two objects were equal would have to either use Object.Equals(Object) or else check at run-time whether an object implemented IEquatable<T> and, if so, cast the object to that interface. In either case, if the type of thing being compared was a value type, at least one boxing operation would be required. Using Reflection makes it possible to have a class EqualityComparer<T> automatically construct a type-specific implementation of IEqualityComparer<T> for any particular type T, with that implementation using IEquatable<T> if it is defined, or using Object.Equals(Object) if it is not. The first time one uses EqualityComparer<T>.Default for any particular type T, the system will have to go through more work than would be required to test, once, whether a particular type implements IEquatable<T>. On the other hand, once that work is done, no more run-time type checking will be required since the system will have produced a custom-built implementation of EqualityComparer<T> for the type in question.