Skip to main content

Missing MI !!!

We all know C# does not offer multiple inheritance but offers arguments that programmers can live without it. It is true in almost all cases, especially all cat and animal or employee and manager projects. I have seen a few cases where if C# offered multiple inheritance, the solution would have been natural, elegant and succinct.

Imagine that I have a component (UI, non-UI, doesn't matter). You can make calls into the component, which does some interesting work for you. Imagine that the component takes an interface IComponentCallback to notify its parent. So I would do is have my parent class derive from IComponentCallback interface and pass this to the component. The code would look something like this:-

interface IComponentCallback
{
   void Callback1();
   bool Callback2();
   void Callback3(int old, int new);
}

class SomeComponent
{
   // The parent on whom callbacks are made
   private IComponentCallback _parent = null;
   
   public SomeCompoent(IComponentCallback cmpCallback)
   {
      // Imagine that callbacks would not be made      
      // if cmpCallback is null
      
      _parent = cmpCallback;
   }
   
   // Other methods in which _parent shall be used
   // for making the callbacks.
}

class Parent : IComponentCallback
{
   private SomeComponent _someComponent = null;
   
   public Parent()
   {
      _someComponent = new SomeComponent(this as IComponentCallback);
   }
   
   #region IComponentCallback methods implementation
   
   void IComponentCallback.Callback1()
   {
      // Code making use of this callback
   }
   
   bool IComponentCallback.Callback2()
   {
      // Possible code to provide some    
      return true;
   }
   
   void Callback3(int old, int new)
   {
      // Code making use of old\new
   }
   
   #endregion
}

void Main(string[] args)
{
   // .... code ...
   
   // Instantiating a parent which would create 
   // SomeComponent and establish itself as the
   // callback sink.
   Parent p = new Parent();
   
   // ... Code ...
}

This is a typical case where the instantiator is the callback sink. And this case is natural and usual. There may be cases where one class instantiates and holds the component while a different class acts as the callback sink. That... is not the topic of our discussion.

Now imagine our parent is a Form class. I am sure you might have come across this case where a Form hosts a UI or non-UI component and you want the callback sink as methods in your class so that you can update the UI directly. What follows may necessarily be the common case but I encountered it more than a few times. In our application, any parent could host the component. There were certain things common to do when processing the callback and hence we wrote a (base) class implementing IComponentCallback and which represents the component callback sink. Since C# does not support MI, any of our custom forms could not be derived from the callback sink class, since they are already derived from System.Windows.Form class.

Now it is not wise to argue that one may use delegates or that this implementation is bad or this is a corner case. I have practically encountered this a few times where the component we are talking about is from a third party. In some cases, the component was our own and implemented for callback mechanism, called plugin, whose intent is quite opposite to event notification. Most others might have "No MI in C#" in mind and would have the sink class as a member of the Form (parent). I don't see that natural but compulsion.

Anyways, a case exists, and of course you can live without MI.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

out, ref and InvokeMember !!!

When I was working on the .NET reflection extravaganza thing that I explained in my previous column, i learnt one another interesting thing, that is about the Type.InvokeMember. How will pass out or ref parameters for the method invoked using Type.InvokeMember ? If you are going to invoke a method with the prototypeint DoSomething(string someString, int someInt);then you would use InvokeMember like this:-object obj = someType.InvokeMember("DoSomething",
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance,
null,
this,
new object[] {"Largest Integer", 1});or use some variables in the new object[] {...}. But what do you with the args if DoSomething takes out or ref parameters ?int DoSomething(out string someString, ref int someInt);Something like this will not work string someText = string.Empty;
int someInt = 0;
object obj = someType.InvokeMember("DoSomething",
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic …

Passing CComPtr By Value !!!

This is about a killer bug identified by our chief software engineer in our software. What was devised for ease of use and write smart code ended up in this killer defect due to improper perception. Ok, let us go!CComPtr is a template class in ATL designed to wrap the discrete functionality of COM object management - AddRef and Release. Technically it is a smart pointer for a COM object.void SomeMethod() { CComPtr siPtr; HRESULT hr = siPtr.CoCreateInstance(CLSID_SomeComponent); siPtr->MethodOne(20, L"Hello"); }Without CComPtr, the code wouldn't be as elegant as above. The code would be spilled with AddRef and Release. Besides, writing code to Release after use under any circumstance is either hard or ugly. CComPtr automatically takes care of releasing in its destructor just like std::auto_ptr. As a C++ programmer, we must be able to appreciate the inevitability of the destructor and its immense use in writing smart code. However there is a difference between …

jqGrid: Handling array data !!!

This post is primarily a personal reference. I also consider this a tribute to Oleg, who was fundamental in improving my understanding of the jqGrid internals - the way it handles source data types, which if I may say led him in discovering a bug in jqGrid.

If you are working with local array data as the source for jqGrid, meaning you will get the data from the server but want the jqGrid not to talk to the server anymore, and want to have custom handling of the edit functionality/form and delete functionality, it is not going to be straightforward - you need to have a decent understanding of how jqGrid works, and you should be aware of the bug Oleg pointed in our discussion. I repeat this is all about using jqGrid to manage array data locally, no posting to server when you edit or delete, which is where the bug is.

$('#grid').jqGrid('navGrid', '#pager', { recreateForm: true, add: false, search: false, refresh: false, …