What is the use of constructor here ?
This is script A :
[SerializeField]
private LobbyFunction _lobbyFunction;
public LobbyFunction LobbyFunction
{
get { return _lobbyFunction; }
}
This is script B:
private void Start()
{
GameObject lobbyCanvasGO = CanvasManager.Instance.LobbyFunction.gameObject;
if (lobbyCanvasGO == null) return;
}
what if I choose not to use the encapsulation ? no error , I guess .Any help would be greatly appreciated ,thanks!
edit: I guess using encapsulation here make the var read- only , only get... and therefore increase the security , people from outside can't change the value ,is it the ans?
This is no constructor but a Property
A property is a member that provides a flexible mechanism to read, write, or compute the value of a private field. Properties can be used as if they are public data members, but they are actually special methods called accessors. This enables data to be accessed easily and still helps promote the safety and flexibility of methods.
In your case it is for granting Read-Only access to the private backing field _lobbyFunction so no other class can change its value since only the class "A" containing _lobbyFunction itself is allowed to assign it.
Btw the way you have it it is equivalent to simply write
public LobbyFunction LobbyFunction { get; private set; }
without the need for a backing field. Then still only the containing class "A" itself is allowed to assign a value while everyone else can read it.
Related
I just started using Unity (which came with VSC), but I had better experience using JetBarin products such as IntelliJ IDEA, so I went and switched to Rider. However, I am now unable to connect public variables (int, float, GameObject) to my Unity projects.
I tried updating Rider and changing some setting, but came none the wiser.
UPDATE: There have been (obvious) request for my code to see the exact issue, so I hope this helps clear up the issue a little bit:
Code written in VSC
The resulting public variables showing up in Unity
Similar code written using Rider
No interactive variables showing up in Unity
Unity serializes only fields (not properties with get or set) of MonoBehaviours. All public fields are serialized unless have [System.NonSerialized] attribute.
DO NOT get confused with the [HideInInspector] attribute, it won't be visible in the inspector (if you don't have a custom inspector) but WILL BE serialized.
class Foo
{
// Bar won't be shown in the inspector or serialized.
[System.NonSerialized]
public int Bar = 5;
}
To serialize a non-public field use [SerializeField] attribute for primitive types (such as int, float, bool).
public class SomePerson : MonoBehaviour
{
// This field gets serialized because it is public.
public string name = "John";
// This field does not get serialized because it is private.
private int age = 40;
// This field gets serialized even though it is private
// because it has the SerializeField attribute applied.
[SerializeField]
private bool isMale = true;
}
If you wanna serialize own class or struct, use [System.Serializable] attribute.
[System.Serializable]
public struct PlayerStats
{
public int level;
public int health;
}
public class CanvasManager : MonoBehaviour
{
public static CanvasManager Instance; // = lobby
[SerializeField]
private LobbyFunction _lobbyFunction;
public LobbyFunction LobbyFunction
{
get { return _lobbyFunction; }
}
...
below is one of the reference
private void Start()
{
GameObject lobbyCanvasGO = CanvasManager.Instance.LobbyFunction.gameObject;
...
I am confused that is it necessary to have the same name of canvasmanager that it is declared , and why there is no error when I sayCanvasManager.Instance.LobbyFunction ,it made me confused since LobbyFunction is belonged to CanvasManager, not Instance.
Finally , sometimes ,
private LobbyFunction _lobbyFunction;
private LobbyFunction LobbyFunction
{
get { return _lobbyFunction; }
}
Sometimes,
private LobbyFunction _lobbyFunction;
public LobbyFunction LobbyFunction
{
get { return _lobbyFunction; }
}
Thanks for your patience reading this, and your help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
Your class is named CanvasManager, but you cannot statically access it right away.
You created a static member variable in CanvasManager, which holds a reference to a CanvasManager. This is called the singleton pattern.
You can only access static members without a class instance. But in the case of singletons, you create a single instance of the class (usually assigned in Start() or in getInstance() (lazy) after checking if it exists) which you can then access statically through "Instance".
Now, Instance is a static variable holding a reference to a single instance of CanvasManager. So, you can then access non-static members and functions of CanvasManager, if you access "Instance".
Think about it like this:
CanvasManager local_instance = new CanvasManager();
local_instance.non_static_member = value; // this works
CanvasManager.static_member = value; // this works
CanvasManager.non_static_member = value; // won't work.
And now one step further, you access the instance via CanvasManager.Instance.*
CanvasManager.Instance.non_static_member = value; // works!
Explanation of static vs non-static:
normal variables:
Variables needs memory. So usually you create 5 instances of CanvasManager and each instance can have different values. Because each instance reserves memory for each Variable. But if you want to change one, you need to explicitly talk to that instance. You could manage them in a List or by having multiple variables in Code like manager1, manager2...
Think of it as books, where each copy can be modified (write notes into it)
static variables
If you create a static variable, the memory is reserved once for the Class. You can then directly get/set this static variable from anywhere in Code without the need of a Reference to an instance.
Think of it as an online blog, where changes are applied for everyone, being accessible from everywhere. The text exists once in the blog database.
Singletons:
If you only want a single CanvasManager and not 5, you could attach it to any GameObject and access it. But every other script needs a reference, like public CanvasManager my_manager which you need to assign in inspector. As an alterantive, you could use
GameObject.Find("CanvasManagerObject").getComponent<CanvasManager>()
in each script... If only there was a better way to access this CanvasManager from everywhere...
The singleton pattern allows you to get a reference to a single, nonstatic instance of the CanvasManager, while it doesn't even need a GameObject it can attach to.
Naming
You are talking about "it has to have the same name" - this is not true. You can name the instance whatever you like. CanvasManager.MyCustomlyNamedInstance would work too. But the MyCustomlyNamedInstance must be a static variable in the CanvasManager class, or any other class. You could have a GameManager that manages your instances, so GameManager.MyCanvasManagerInstance would work too.
I am currently using Mehdi El Gueddari's DbContextScope project, I think by the book, and it's awesome. But I came across a problem I'm unsure how to solve today. I have a query that I need to execute using a different database login/user because it requires additional permissions. I can create another connection string in my web.config, but I'm not sure how to specify that for this query, I want to use this new connection string. Here is my usage:
In my logic layer:
private static IDbContextScopeFactory _dbContextFactory = new DbContextScopeFactory();
public static Guid GetFacilityID(string altID)
{
...
using (_dbContextFactory.CreateReadOnly())
{
entity = entities.GetFacilityID(altID)
}
}
That calls into my data layer which would look something like this:
private AmbientDbContextLocator _dbcLocator = new AmbientDbContextLocator();
protected CRMEntities DBContext
{
get
{
var dbContext = _dbcLocator.Get<CRMEntities>();
if (dbContext == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("No ambient DbContext....");
return dbContext;
}
}
public virtual Guid GetFaciltyID(string altID)
{
return DBContext.Set<Facility>().Where(f => f.altID = altID).Select(f => f.ID).FirstOrDefault();
}
Currently my connection string is set in the default way:
public partial class CRMEntities : DbContext
{
public CRMEntities()
: base("name=CRMEntities")
{}
}
Is it possible for this specific query to use a different connection string and how?
I ended up modifying the source code in a way that feels slightly hacky, but is getting the job done for now. I created a new IAmbientDbContextLocator with a Get<TDbContext> method override that accepts a connection string:
public TDbContext Get<TDbContext>(string nameOrConnectionString) where TDbContext : DbContext
{
var ambientDbContextScope = DbContextScope.GetAmbientScope();
return ambientDbContextScope == null ? null : ambientDbContextScope.DbContexts.Get<TDbContext>(nameOrConnectionString);
}
Then I updated the DbContextCollection to pass this parameter to the DbContext's existing constructor overload. Last, I updated the DbContextCollection maintain a Dictionary<KeyValuePair<Type, string>, DbContext> instead of a Dictionary<Type, DbContext> as its cached _initializedDbContexts where the added string is the nameOrConnectionString param. So in other words, I updated it to cache unique DbContext type/connection string pairs.
Then I can get at the DbContext with the connection I need like this:
var dbContext = new CustomAmbientDbContextLocator().Get<CRMEntities>("name=CRMEntitiesAdmin");
Of course you'd have to be careful your code doesn't end up going through two different contexts/connection strings when it should be going through the same one. In my case I have them separated into two different data access class implementations.
I am trying to initialize an Entity object (ADO.NET EF Object), but it does not allow me to choose what connection string I want to use. I need to change connection string in order to give different access levels to users.
There are no overrides in the Entities Object, just a parameterless constructor.
If anyone can give me any pointers, it is appreciated.
If you have used the designer to generate an .edmx file for you, you will have something like below:
public MyEntities() : base("name=MyEntities", "MyEntities")
{
this.ContextOptions.LazyLoadingEnabled = true;
OnContextCreated();
}
This will by default, get the connection string from your configuration file.
What you could do in this case is set the connection string
public partial class MyEntities
{
partial void OnContextCreated()
{
//Dynamically Building a Connection String
this.Connection.ConnectionString = "myconnectionstring";
}
}
Bear in mind though that this will first use the base constructor to pull the connection string from config, then set it with your custom version, basically overriding the connection string. This is typically good when you always want a default connection string.
Another option if you want a bit more control, is pass the connection string in via the constructor as shown below:
public partial class MyEntities
{
public MyEntities(string connectionString) :
base(connectionString,"MyEntities")
{
this.OnContextCreated();
}
}
Now you are passing in the connection string down to the base class and this is the only one it will use. This does mean however that you will most often need to supply this each time.
Hope this helps...
What's the best way to set default properties for new entities in DDD? Also, what's the best way to set default states for complex properties (eg. collections)?
My feeling is that default values should be in the models themselves as they are a form of business rule ("by default, we want X's to be Y & Z"), and the domain represents the business. With this approach, maybe a static "GetNew()" method on the model itself would work:
public class Person {
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; }
public bool IsAlive { get; set; }
public List Limbs { get; set; }
public static Person GetNew() {
return new Person() {
IsAlive = true,
Limbs = new List() { RightArm, LeftArm, RightLeg, LeftLeg }
}
}
}
Unfortunately in our case, we need the collection property to be set to all members of another list, and as this model is decoupled from its Repository/DbContext it doesn't have any way of loading them all.
Crappy solution would be to pass as parameter :
public static Person GetNew(List<Limb> allLimbs) {
return new Person() {
IsAlive = true,
Limbs = allLimbs
}
}
Alternatively is there some better way of setting default values for simple & complex model properties?
This is an instance of the factory pattern in DDD. It can either be a dedicated class, such as PersonFactory, or a static method, as in your example. I prefer the static method because I see no need to create a whole new class.
As far as initializing the collection, the GetNew method with the collection as a parameter is something I would go with. It states an important constraint - to create a new person entity you need that collection. The collection instance would be provided by an application service hosting the specific use case where it is needed. More generally, default values could be stored in the database, in which case the application service would call out to a repository to obtain the required values.
Take a look at the Static Builder in Joshua Bloch's Effective Java (Second Edition). In there, you have a static builder class and you chain calls to set properties before construction so it solves the problem of either having a constructor that takes a ton of arguments or having to put setters on every property (in which case, you effectively have a Struct).