I have two classes in two separate libraries (one VB, one C#):
Public Class Item
...
Public Overridable ReadOnly Property TotalPrice() As String
Get
Return FormatCurrency(Price + SelectedOptionsTotal())
End Get
End Property
End Class
and
public class DerivedItem : Item {
...
public new Decimal TotalPrice
{
get { return Price + OptionsPrice; }
}
}
As you can see, the DerivedItem.TotalPrice shadows the Item.TotalPrice property. However, when trying to retrieve the DerivedItem.TotalPrice value, I'm still getting the base object's TotalPrice value.
Why is the DerivedItem's property not being returned?
EDIT
I've actually found the problem! I am getting the wrong value in the JSON string being returned via AJAX. It turns out that the TotalPrice is being returned correctly, it's just being overwritten by the shadowed property call being made later in the JSON string. My new question, then, is how to I prevent the shadowed property from being serialized?
(This question has been rescoped here)
It may depend on how you are instantiating the object.
For example:
DerivedItem i = new DerivedItem();
i.TotalPrice();
Will call the shadowed version.
However:
Item i = new DerivedItem();
i.TotalPrice();
Will actually call the base.
Here's a nice explanation.
Of course if at all possible I would avoid shadowing.... :-)
Are you referecing TotalPrice from a reference to the base type?
Item item = new DerivedItem;
string s = item.TotalPrice;
Does setting <NonSerialized()> attribute on the base class property work?
Related
I have a VB class. It's big, so I'm posting a simplified example here:
Public Class ExampleClass
Public Property Foo As String
Public Property Bar As String
End Class
Suppose I have a text file like this:
foo,123
bar,456
And I want to read the file and populate the properties of my object accordingly.
Simplest way I can think of is to add a method with a case statement, like this:
Public Class ExampleClass
Public Property Foo As String
Public Property Bar As String
Public Sub SetProperty(prop As String, val As String)
Select Case prop
Case "Foo"
Foo = val
Case "Bar"
Bar = val
End Select
End Sub
End Class
But as my class will have around a hundred properties, so my SetProperty procedure is going to get big and boring to put together, and probably not be the most maintainable. Is there a better way to do this?
Before you tell me, I shouldn't structure my data this way, I know. However, this is a legacy database table that I have to live with. I'm updating the application with some new Entity Framework and LINQ code that will allow me to drop some very ugly stored procedures.
Thanks for your help.
James
You can find each object property via reflection
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo pi = myClass.GetType().GetProperty("Foo");
if (pi != null && pi.CanWrite)
{
//Check the type before assignment...
if (pi.PropertyType.IsAssignableFrom(typeof(string)))
pi.SetValue(myClass, value, null);
}
i am getting error "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." my is here,
public class UserProfession
{
public UserProfession()
{
}
public System.String[] Designation
{
get;
set;
}
}
then i am using it like,
UserProfession.Designation[0] =txt_Search.Text.ToString();
Error i mentioned you hopes for your suggestions .
-Thanks
When you make an assignment to an array property, like this:
UserProfession.Designation[0] =txt_Search.Text.ToString();
what you are actually doing is calling the get section for that property... not the set. This returns the object supported the property... the whole object, and not just the index. Index lookup does not happen until after the object is returned. Once you have that object, accessing an index works in the normal way.
You get this specific exception because you have the expression UserProfession.Designation that should return a reference to an array object, but because you never initialize the array there is nothing there when you then try to find reference the 0th element. At this point the framework discovers that the array (your "object reference") is "not set to an instance of an object"... which is just a fancy way of saying it's null.
In other words, you need to have an already existing array to hold the value you want to assign. That means doing something like this:
Designation = new String[10];
public String[] Designation
{
get;
set;
}
However, notice that we never used the set section? So you can simplify that further, like this:
Designation = new String[10];
public String[] Designation {get;private set;}
This will keep client code from completely swapping an entire array out from under your object, but otherwise will provide the full functionality of an array property. If you provide your own backing store for the array, you could even get rid of the setter entirely with no loss of functionality:
private string[] _designation = new string[10];
public string[] Designation {get {return _designation;} }
But let's add one more wrinkle: your desire to assign the to array before initializing it indicates to me that you likely don't really know how big it will be up front. If that's the case, you probably want a collection of some kind instead of an array. A generic List is a convenient and very compatible replacement for an array. That would look like this:
private List<string> _designation = new List<string>();
public List<string> Designation {get {return _designation;}}
You can still access items in that list by index, just like you would with an array. The only difference you need to worry about right now is how you add new items:
UserProfession.Designation.Add(txt_Search.Text);
Also notice that I removed the .ToString() call. Since your .Text property is almost certainly already a string, calling the .ToString() method is just silly.
You will have to initialize the object, before assigning the value. The initialization should be done just once. I have initialized the array size to ten. You can have your own values here. If you want to resize dynamically, you can use ArrayList
int length = 10;
UserProfession.Designation = new System.String[length];
UserProfession.Designation[0] =txt_Search.Text.ToString();
For more information: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa287601(v=vs.71).aspx
it must initialize the value before we use because, currently, it is null.
you better add the initialization code in the constructor function.
I have a .Net Web Service function that can accept one string.
That function will then serialize that string to JSON, but I only want to serialize it if it's value is not "".
I found these instructions:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa347792.aspx
[DataContract]
public class MyClass
{
[DataMember (EmitDefaultValue=false)]
public string myValue = ""
}
Unfortunatelly I can not hide the myValue from the serialization because "" is not the .Net default value for a string (how dumb is that!)
One of two option ocurred
On the web service have some kind of attribute that sets the "" to null
Have some condition on the class
I would prefer the 1st because it makes the code cleaner but an opinion would be great.
Thanks
You can explicitly set what the default value is (for the purposes of serialization) using the DefaultValueAttribute class:
[DataContract]
public class MyClass
{
[DataMember (EmitDefaultValue=false)]
[DefaultValue("")]
public string myValue = ""
}
I think you have at least a couple of options here. It's extra work but worth it.
You can encapsulate the string in a reference type. Since reference types are null if not present, that lets you know right away if a string was present or not (because the encapsulating reference type would be either non-null or null, if the string is non-empty or not.)
A final option you have is to add an extra complementary variable (perhaps a boolean) that is set on OnDeserializing/OnDeserialized/OnSerializing/OnSerialized and use this to track whether or not something was actually present on the wire. You might, for example, set this complementary variable to true only when you're actually serializing out a non-empty string and similarly
I have a dynamic class that I have created
public dynamic class SiteZoneFileUploadVO
{
public var destination:String = "sitezone";
public var siteZoneId:uint;
public var fileType:String;
public var fileContents:String;
public function SiteZoneFileUploadVO()
{
}
}
when I try to iterate over this object's property names it only iterates the dynamically added properties.
parameters.dynVar= "value";
for(var name:String in parameters)
{
trace(name);
}
Even though the object has all the properties equal to a value (ive checked this in the debugger) the only property name that will be traced is dynVar.
How can I iterate over all the property names and not just the dynamically added ones?
You can use describeType() to get an XML with all methods and variables of your class and then filter out the properties you want to iterate over (e.g. all variables) and store them in an XMLList.
As the next step you would then iterate over the XMLList and use square bracket notation on your object to access the filtered properties by their names. However, you can only access public properties this way because describeType() won't look at private properties.
If you're running flex:
Looked at a few posts, ObjectUtil.toString was the most promising, then looked at the flex source code for it, it uses another method ObjectUtil.getClassInfo which is exactly what you need. If you just want property names:
ObjectUtil.getClassInfo(myClass).properties
returns an Array of QName objects, each has a localName property which will give you a string for each property name
Just use trace(ObjectUtil.toString(parameters)); That should give you your entire object.
Maybe I should just make this a public member, but I keep thinking it should be a constant.
SCENARIO
I have forms I'm rendering into PDFs (using iTextSharp). In code, the forms themselves all inherit a base class (OrderForm). Within OrderForm, there are a list of constants that I use for measurements when aligning things for the PDF rendering, such as LEFT_MARGIN, etc. These constants are used in several functions to determine where things go.
All the forms are virtually identical as they are comprised of the same components (header, address boxes, items, etc). However, the layout of the forms differ slightly... on one form, the address box is an inch further to the right (to fit in the envelope window my employer uses).
ISSUE
Rather than create a slew of constants for each margin, padding, blah blah for each form in the base class, eg: PURCHASE_ORDER_LEFT_MARGIN, INVOICE_LEFT_MARGIN, etc, wouldn't it be better to create an overridable LEFT_MARGIN that can be set in the "inheritee" [sic] object? My reasoning is that it is a constant that will not change within that object, only form to form, yet the renderings in the base class will remain relative to whatever that constant is.
I know I could simply create a public member and set its value, but I'd like to know the right way to go about this.
Thanks.
Constants are implicitly static (Shared).
Use a Readonly Property instead, and then you can choose to override it whenever or wherever need be.
A quick example ....
Class BaseClass
' Assume this field is set with a value from somewhere else'
Private _leftmargin As Integer
Overridable Readonly Property LEFT_MARGIN As Integer
Get
Return _leftmargin
End Get
End Property
End Class
Class DerivedClass1
Inherits BaseClass
Overrides Readonly Property LEFT_MARGIN As Integer
Get
Return 5 'specialized case for this class'
End Get
End Property
End Class
Class DerivedClass2
Inherits BaseClass
'uses base class LEFT_MARGIN'
End Class
Constants are compiled as literal values. If you have this (C#) source code:
public static class MyStringTestClass
{
// Fields
public const string ConstString = "Const String";
public void TestMethod()
{
string sc = MyStringTestClass.ConstString;
SomeOtherFunction(sc);
}
}
then the compiler will produce this:
public static class MyStringTestClass
{
// I'm not 100% sure if this declaration is removed as well...
public const string ConstString = "Const String";
public void TestMethod()
{
// ...but I know for sure that it will be removed
// everywhere it's used - including other assemblies!
string sc = "Const String";
SomeOtherFunction(sc);
}
}
As you see, "ConstString" is completely GONE and it's literal value is inserted everywhere.
So use the VB.net equivalent of a ReadOnly Virtual Property (I think "virtual" is called "Overridable" in VB.net?) and override it.
What you want is a regular property ... Any value that changes is not a constant ... :)
What you can do is to use methods instead of constants. At the base class the method will return the value of the constant as it is now.
Inheriting class can provide a new value for the "constant" by overriding the corresponding method.