|
|
I was just in Barnes and Noble and I was skimming through the book "Effective C#" by Bill Wagner. One of his tips was that you should never have a public variable in a class, that you should ALWAYS use properties. This sorta goes against some things that I've read in other books. I was just curious what others thought about it. Isnt there extra overhead for using properties?
|
|
|
|
|
xdavidx wrote:
One of his tips was that you should never have a public variable in a class, that you should ALWAYS use properties. This sorta goes against some things that I've read in other books.
What other books?! I've never seen that advice. Bill Wagner is right - you should use properties. You should declare all member variables as private or protected (some people say that even protected is bad - But I think the jury's still out on that one)
Declaring a member variable as public means that encapsulation is broken and anything outside the object can modify the member variables without notice.
Using a property you can control what happens. Sometimes you don't mind that the member variable is updated from outside as any valid value cannot make the state of the object invalid. In this case the property just passes through the value and assigns it to the member variable. What is the point in that? (you might ask.) Well, if in the future you realise that when that variable changes something else must happen then you have your property already set up and adding some lines of code to the property means that you can do the other work without having to modify vast amounts of code to now use the property instead of a member variable.
Sometimes you might only want other code to have read-only access to the member variable's value, in this case you only implement a getter property so that nothing can set values on the property.
Does this help?
My: Blog | Photos | Next SQL Presentation
WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
|
|
|
|
|
I personally think that you should use properties since you can hide your data members from clients of your class. This enforces a better object-oriented design. Also, if you want to expose your .NET classes to COM clients, then you must use properties. Properties are really function calls so the only overhead to using them is function call overhead.
Human beings were not meant to sit in little cubicles staring at computer screens all day, filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about about mission statements. -- Peter Gibbons
|
|
|
|
|
The JIT compiler might even inline the function calls when calling properties, as most property get/setters don't do much. That'll do away with the function call overhead also.
Regards
Senthil
_____________________________
My Blog | My Articles | WinMacro
|
|
|
|
|
One of the C# program managers, Eric Gunnerson[^], has commented that in some cases properties are over-used.
There are only a few times when I don't write properties out, mainly when dealing with structs or classes that are used just as data storage without any methods.
For example, one easy way to implement IEditableObject is to do something like this:
class Foo : IEditableObject
{
private struct FooData
{
public int i;
public string j;
public DateTime t;
public object o;
}
private FooData data;
private FooData old;
public int I
{
get { return data.i; }
set { data.i = value; }
}
public string J
{
get { return data.j; }
set { data.j = value; }
}
void BeginEdit()
{
old = data;
}
void CancelEdit()
{
data = old;
}
void EndEdit()
{
}
}
I believe I do something similar in my IExtenderProvider article where all of the data stored for each object 'extended' is stored in a class with public fields. I know this is the case in the code that inspired the article.
In both cases the type exposing public fields is only intended for the use of one class in a private manner.
James
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, i have a process that launches a worker thread to do stuff. The problem I have is that while the worker bee is doing its thing, the main boss thread is coming along and killing an object that the worker bee is using. So, i am wondering is it possible to "stop" or pause the main thread while the worker bee finishes. I know its almost like a thread timing issue, so i am wondering if anyone has advice of this matter.
Thanks
Sameer
|
|
|
|
|
You can call the Join method of your worker thread to make the main thread wait until the worker thread terminates.
www.troschuetz.de
|
|
|
|
|
Autoupdater application is not able to download the files with extension .config.
Our manifest file contains entries for dll files and .config files. The problem arises when the files list starts with the .config file followed by dlls or only the .config file.
When it tries to download the .config file, it throws an error “The server does not support range header”. This comes when we re-start the client machine and download files for the first time.
The manifest file that we are using is:
---------------------------------------
<manifest manifestid="{311085F7-9320-4318-9A67-9BE32F04E111}" mandatory="False"
="" xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:PAG:updater-application-block:v2:manifest">
<description>a description for this manifest
<application applicationid="{215E1AD7-9ABA-432f-A952-24BABA556850}">
<entrypoint file="TWSWinUI.exe" parameters="">
<location>..\..\..\Elind.TraderWorkStation\Core\UserInterface\WinUI\Bin\
<files base="http://10.150.15.208/BlockBook_TWS/Version1/">
<file source="TWSWinUI.exe.config">
<activation>
<tasks>
<task name="ApplicationDeployProcessor" type="Microsoft.ApplicationBlocks.Updater.ActivationProcessors.ApplicationDeployProcessor, Microsoft.ApplicationBlocks.Updater.ActivationProcessors">
Downloader configuration in App.config is:
------------------------------------------
<includetypes>
<includetype name="Xml Include Type" type="Microsoft.ApplicationBlocks.Updater.Downloaders.BITSDownloaderProviderData, Microsoft.ApplicationBlocks.Updater.Downloaders">
|
|
|
|
|
i have made an web application with c# and sql server 2000 database
i need realy good tutorial or book to know more about how to load my
application with the database to remote web server thank you to any one will
help
nynostore
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I've found in every function I am writing I have lots of debug code and was just wondering if I can somehow shorten it. For example:
<br />
void testFunction()<br />
{<br />
try<br />
{<br />
....<br />
Do something that might cause an exception here<br />
}<br />
catch(mySpecialException e)<br />
{<br />
myLogClass.log(e.message);<br />
myLogClass.dump;
}<br />
}<br />
What I would like is to have some kind of wrapper which I could pass the function name (either by name or as a pointer(delegate?)) to it which would then execute and return.
Example:
<br />
void wrapper(functionToRun())<br />
{<br />
try<br />
{<br />
functionToRun();<br />
}<br />
catch(...)<br />
{<br />
myLogClass.log(message);<br />
}<br />
}<br />
<br />
void test()<br />
{<br />
Console.WriteLine("Hello this is a test!");<br />
}<br />
<br />
void hello()<br />
{<br />
Console.WriteLine("Hello");<br />
}<br />
<br />
static void Main(string[] args)<br />
{<br />
wrapper(test());<br />
wrapper(hello());<br />
}<br />
Any ideas?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
If all your functions have the same signature, then it is possible. You can do something like
public class Foo
{
delegate void WrapperDelegate();
void Hello() { Console.WriteLine("Hello"); }
void Test() { Console.WriteLine("Test"); }
public void SomeFunc()
{
executeFunction(new WrapperDelegate(Hello));
executeFunction(new WrapperDelegate(Test));
}
private void executeFunction(WrapperDelegate d)
{
try
{
d();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
}
}
}
Regards
Senthil
_____________________________
My Blog | My Articles | WinMacro
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestion but unfortunately hardly any of my functions have the same signature!
|
|
|
|
|
The solution will work if there only a few signatures. You just need to create one WrapperDelegate for each type and add one executeFunction for each such WrapperDelegate.
Regards
Senthil
_____________________________
My Blog | My Articles | WinMacro
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to construct a delegate manualy, at runtime, from an object refference, and a pointer to a method's runtime handle. However, when i try and compile to code :
<br />
System.Windows.Forms.TreeViewEventHandler thing<br />
= new System.Windows.Forms.TreeViewEventHandler(obj, ip);<br />
It throws an error message saying - "Method Name Expected"
How can I get around this?
regards
Cata
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers, got to it about 10 seconds after u posted 
|
|
|
|
|
It seemst that VS.net doesn't like me running away on my own with delegates. So i just reflected it.
If anyone is interested - Here is the code (Exception Handling omitted for ease of reading):
<br />
public static object InvokeDelegateViaReflection(Type delegateType, object obj, MethodInfo method)<br />
{<br />
ConstructorInfo ci = delegateType.GetConstructors()[0];<br />
<br />
object[] args = new object[]{@obj, method.MethodHandle.GetFunctionPointer()};<br />
<br />
object result = ci.Invoke(<br />
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.CreateInstance,<br />
null,args,null); <br />
<br />
return result;<br />
}<br />
Hope that helps someone
Cata
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, I didnt actually suggested that 
I was thing along the lines of Delegate.CreateDelegate(Type, Object, String) : Delegate, but you method is perhaps 'stricter'
xacc-ide 0.0.15 now with C#, MSIL, C, XML, ASP.NET, Nemerle, MyXaml and HLSL coloring - Screenshots
|
|
|
|
|
source code for voice chating on LAN using C#
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
And your question is???
As usual...
Give me "source code for voice chating on LAN using C# "
or maybe
David
Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have requested Source code or any help or logic for
voice communication over LAN.thanks for help.but i m sorry i cannot understand mentioned website or i cannot get source code.please help me an give more information
THANKX
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
i cannot understand mentioned website or i cannot get source code
Nobody mentioned a web site.
No one was able to help. This could be for a number of reasons.
1. No one here has experience of writing voice chatting programs
2. There are experienced people here, but the answer would be long and complex and most people don't have that much time.
3. Your request is too vague.
Questions that generate good answers are generally very specific and do not ask for a whole system.
My: Blog | Photos | Next SQL Presentation
WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
