In this Virtual property that is used in an EF class why is it returning HashSet<T>? What is that class?
public virtual ICollection<TownShip> TownShips
{
get
{
return this.TownShips ?? (this.TownShips = new HashSet<TownShip>());
}
set
{
this.TownShips = value;
}
}
HashSet<T> is a generic class that implements the ICollection<T> interface. From the documentation:
The HashSet class provides high-performance set operations. A set
is a collection that contains no duplicate elements, and whose
elements are in no particular order.
In the code, if the property Townships is null, than an empty collection (HashSet) is returned.
HashSet of T's Documentation Here
Related
I need to ensure the following class is serializable by Microsoft Bond. I am struggling to find a way to do this due to the inclusion of the object member.
public class BondRemotingRequestMessageBody : IServiceRemotingRequestMessageBody
{
public object Value;
public BondRemotingRequestMessageBody()
{
}
public BondRemotingRequestMessageBody(int parameterInfos)
{
}
public void SetParameter(int position, string paramName, object parameter)
{
Value = parameter;
}
public object GetParameter(int position, string paramName, Type paramType)
{
return Value;
}
}
Is there a way around this?
This is for an Azure Service Fabric ASR implementation.
Thanks in advance.
I don't know about the Service Fabric parts, but from a Bond perspective, all of the fields that are to be serialized must be known to Bond and must be a type (or convertible to a type) that can be serialized. In practice, this means that all of the data structures that you need to serialize is expressed in a collection of .bond files.
The closest to C#'s object would be a bonded<bond.Void> field that you later deserialize as the proper well-known derived type. You would need to include (or be able to infer/derive) the correct derived type. The polymorphic container example demonstrates this pattern; it uses an enum field in a base struct to carry the derived type information.
I have an object like so:
public class Intent
{
public List<Entity> Updates { get; set; }
}
Which I wish to serialize into XML for passing as a message using MSMQ. The list of type Entity can contain any number of instances of classes that inherit from Entity. For example, there may be:
public Person : Entity { /* ... */ }
public Vehicle : Entity { /* ... */ }
I'm using XmlMessageFormatter, which so far I have defined as:
XmlMessageFormatter _formatter =
new XmlMessageFormatter(new[] { typeof(T) });
Where T in this instance is Intent (as above).
Trouble is, when the code actually attempts to serialize the following exception occurs:
The type CoreApi.Domain.Person was not expected. Use the XmlInclude or SoapInclude attribute to specify types that are not known statically.
I believe this is because I need to tell the serializer somehow of the fact that Person is a child class of entity.
I've seen solutions that basically entail adorning Entity with multiple XmlInclude decorations, which in my scenario is unworkable as the list of inheritors of Entity is large and could grow - I don't want to constantly update this list as new inheritors are added.
I've seen other solutions that use XmlSerializer, passing in a list of known types, the trouble with this is that I somehow need to replace XmlMessageSerialiser with the XmlSerialiser instance which isn't compatible.
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).
I have a base class and two derived classes.
Each of the derived classes implements the same type as a property - the only difference is the property name.
Sadly I don't have much influence on the class design -> they have been generated from a wsdl file.
I then have a property on the BaseType to encapsulate the common property. The plan was to use this property in my web views etc.
I have used the famous "Fruit-Example" to demonstrate the problem:
public class FruitBase
{
public virtual int ID { get; set; }
//
// The plan is to use this property in mvc view
//
[NotMapped]
public virtual FruitnessFactor Fruitness
{
get
{
if (this.GetType().BaseType == typeof(Apple))
return ((Apple)this).AppleFruitness;
else if (this.GetType().BaseType == typeof(Orange))
return ((Orange)this).OrangeFruitness;
else
return null;
}
}
}
public class FruitnessFactor { }
In my MVC controller, the following query works absolutely fine:
return View(context.FruitEntities
.OfType<Apple>().Include(a =>a.AppleFruitness)
.ToList());
But this one doesn't:
return View(context.FruitEntities
.OfType<Apple>().Include(a =>a.AppleFruitness)
.OfType<Orange>().Include(o => o.OrangeFruitness)
.ToList());
The error message I get is:
DbOfTypeExpression requires an expression argument with a polymorphic result type that is compatible with the type argument.
I am using EF 5.0 RC and the Code First approach.
Any help is much appreciated!
As far as I can tell you can't apply Include on multiple subtypes in a single database query. You can query one type (OfType<Apple>().Include(a => a.AppelFruitness)) and the same for another subtype. The problem is that you can't concat the results in the same query because the result collections have different generic types (apples and oranges).
One option would be to run two queries and copy the result collection into a new collection of the base type - as you already indicated in the comment section under your question.
The other option (which would only need a single query) is a projection. You would have to define a projection type (you could also project into an anonymous type)...
public class FruitViewModel
{
public FruitBase Fruit { get; set; }
public FruitnessFactor Factor { get; set; }
}
...and then can use the query:
List<FruitViewModel> fruitViewModels = context.FruitEntities
.OfType<Apple>()
.Select(a => new FruitViewModel
{
Fruit = a,
Factor = a.AppleFruitness
})
.Concat(context.FruitEntities
.OfType<Orange>()
.Select(o => new FruitViewModel
{
Fruit = o,
Factor = o.OrangeFruitness
}))
.ToList();
If you don't disable change tracking (by using AsNoTracking) the navigation properties get populated automatically when the entities get attached to the context ("Relationship fixup") which means that you can extract the fruits from the viewModel collection...
IEnumerable<FruitBase> fruits = fruitViewModels.Select(fv => fv.Fruit);
...and you'll get the fruits including the FruitnessFactor properties.
This code is pretty awkward but a direct approach without using a projection has been asked for several times without success:
bottleneck using entity framework inheritance
Entity Framework - Eager loading of subclass related objects
How do I deeply eager load an entity with a reference to an instance of a persistent base type (Entity Framework 4)
i have a question.i have a method (Filter),i want to pass T dynamic.but it dosen`t accept.how can i do it?
public List<T> Filter<T>(string TypeOfCompare)
{
List<T> ReturnList2 = new List<T>();
return ReturnList2;
}
IList MakeListOfType(Type listType)
{
Type listType1 = typeof(List<>);
Type specificListType = listType.MakeGenericType(listType1);
return (IList)Activator.CreateInstance(specificListType);
}
Filter < ConstructGenericList(h) > ("s");
IList MakeListOfType(Type listType)
{
Type listType1 = typeof(List<>);
Type specificListType = listType.MakeGenericType(listType1);
return (IList)Activator.CreateInstance(specificListType);
}
It should be the other way round, you should call MakeGenericType on the generic type definition, not on the generic type argument. So the code becomes this:
IList MakeListOfType(Type elementType)
{
Type listType = typeof(List<>);
Type specificListType = listType.MakeGenericType(elementType);
return (IList)Activator.CreateInstance(specificListType);
}
(note that I changed the variables names to make the code clearer)
Generic parameters must have a type able to be determined at compile time (without resorting to something like functional type inference that some other languages have). So, you can't just stick a function between the angle brackets to get the type you want.
Edit:
Now that I know what you're trying to do, I would suggest a different approach entirely.
You mention that you are using Entity Framework, and you are trying to use one method to get a list of different types of objects. Those objects -- like Student and Teacher -- must have something in common, though, else you would not be trying to use the same method to retrieve a list of them. For example, you may just be wanting to display a name and have an ID to use as a key.
In that case, I would suggest defining an interface that has the properties common to Student, Teacher, etc. that you actually need, then returning a list of that interface type. Within the method, you would essentially be using a variant of the factory pattern.
So, you could define an interface like:
public interface INamedPerson
{
int ID { get; }
string FirstName { get; }
string LastName { get; }
}
Make your entities implement this interface. Auto-generated entities are (typically) partial classes, so in your own, new code files (not in the auto-generated code files themselves), you would do something like:
public partial class Student : INamedPerson
{
public int ID
{
get
{
return StudentId;
}
}
}
and
public partial class Teacher : INamedPerson
{
public int ID
{
get
{
return TeacherId;
}
}
}
Now, you may not even need to add the ID property if you already have it. However, if the identity property in each class is different, this adapter can be one way to implement the interface you need.
Then, for the method itself, an example would be:
public List<INamedPerson> MakeListOfType(Type type)
{
if (type == typeof(Student))
{
// Get your list of students. I'll just use a made-up
// method that returns List<Student>.
return GetStudentList().Select<Student, INamedPerson>(s => (INamedPerson)s)
.ToList<INamedPerson>();
}
if (type == typeof(Teacher))
{
return GetTeacherList().Select<Teacher, INamedPerson>(t => (INamedPerson)t)
.ToList<INamedPerson>();
}
throw new ArgumentException("Invalid type.");
}
Now, there are certainly ways to refine this pattern. If you have a lot of related classes, you may want to use some sort of dependency injection framework. Also, you may notice that there is a lot of duplication of code. You could instead pass a function (like GetStudentList or GetTeacherList) by doing something like
public List<INamedPerson> GetListFromFunction<T>(Func<IEnumerable<T>> theFunction) where T : INamedPerson
{
return theFunction().Select<T, INamedPerson>(t => (INamedPerson)t).ToList<INamedPerson>();
}
Of course, using this function requires, once again, the type passed in to be known at compile time. However, at some point, you're going to have to decide on a type, so maybe that is the appropriate time. Further, you can make your life a little simpler by leaving off the generic type at method call time; as long as you are passing in a function that takes no arguments and returns an IEnumerable of objects of the same type that implement INamedPerson, the compiler can figure out what to use for the generic type T.