Reputation: 46034
Forgive me if this question has already been asked and answered.
Given a class of type T, what is the difference between the following?
T myObj = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
T myObj = typeof(T).InvokeMember(null, BindingFlags.CreateInstance, null, null, null);
Is one solution preferred over the other?
Upvotes: 19
Views: 4989
Reputation: 22492
Decompiling RuntimeType.InvokeMember
yields this fragment:
if ((bindingFlags & BindingFlags.CreateInstance) != BindingFlags.Default)
{
if (((bindingFlags & BindingFlags.CreateInstance) != BindingFlags.Default) && ((bindingFlags & (BindingFlags.SetProperty | BindingFlags.GetProperty | BindingFlags.SetField | BindingFlags.GetField | BindingFlags.InvokeMethod)) != BindingFlags.Default))
{
throw new ArgumentException(Environment.GetResourceString("Arg_CreatInstAccess"), "bindingFlags");
}
return Activator.CreateInstance(this, bindingFlags, binder, providedArgs, culture);
}
In other words, InvokeMember
with those BindingFlags
calls Activator.CreateInstance
. It goes through several more call layers (checking bindings, verifying arguments) before getting down to business. Activator.CreateInstance<T>
is much more succinct:
public static T CreateInstance<T>()
{
bool bNeedSecurityCheck = true;
bool canBeCached = false;
RuntimeMethodHandle emptyHandle = RuntimeMethodHandle.EmptyHandle;
return (T) RuntimeTypeHandle.CreateInstance(typeof(T) as RuntimeType, true, true, ref canBeCached, ref emptyHandle, ref bNeedSecurityCheck);
}
EDITED You might expect the latter to be faster, but a method called RuntimeType.CreateInstanceSlow
also calls RuntimeTypeHandle.CreateInstance
to do the work; it's used as a fallback if an Activator cache entry for the constructor can't be found. I'd do some performance testing if you're looking for the fastest solution of the two.
Upvotes: 13