Reputation: 8767
Is there any way to move the Parse method into the abstract class ? I tried multiple ways (links at the bottom), but I am still hitting one or another roadblock.
public class AnimalEntityId : EntityId<AnimalEntityId>
{
public AnimalEntityId()
: base()
{
}
private AnimalEntityId(string value)
: base(value)
{
}
public static AnimalEntityId Parse(string value)
{
return new AnimalEntityId(value);
}
}
public abstract class EntityId<TEntityId>
{
private readonly System.Guid value;
protected EntityId(string value)
{
this.value = System.Guid.Parse(value);
}
protected EntityId()
{
this.value = System.Guid.NewGuid();
}
}
Tried these suggestions with no luck:
Is there a generic constructor with parameter constraint in C#?
Thanks in advance!
Upvotes: 3
Views: 140
Reputation: 9587
How about making value
a private mutable field/property and actually setting it from the Parse
method?
(Curiously recurring generic parameter removed from EntityId
for simplicity)
public class SimpleAnimalEntityId : EntityId
{
// Implicit parameterless constructor.
}
public class ParametrizedAnimalEntityId : EntityId
{
// Parametrized constructor only.
public ParametrizedAnimalEntityId(int ignored)
{
}
}
public abstract class EntityId
{
// Simple scenario: derived type has a parameterless constructor.
public static TEntity Parse<TEntity>(string value)
where TEntity : EntityId, new()
{
Guid id = Guid.Parse(value);
return new TEntity { value = id };
}
// Advanced scenario: derived type constructor needs parameters injected.
public static TEntity Parse<TEntity>(string value, Func<TEntity> constructor)
where TEntity : EntityId
{
Guid id = Guid.Parse(value);
TEntity entity = constructor();
entity.value = id;
return entity;
}
private Guid value;
protected EntityId()
{
value = Guid.NewGuid();
}
}
Now you can handle any constructor from your Parse
method:
string id = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
SimpleAnimalEntityId simple = EntityId.Parse<SimpleAnimalEntityId>(id);
ParametrizedAnimalEntityId parametrized = EntityId.Parse(id, () => new ParametrizedAnimalEntityId(42));
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 726509
If you don't mind using reflection, you can move Parse
into the abstract type like this:
public static TEntityId Parse(string val) {
var constr = typeof(TEntityId).GetConstructor(
// Since the constructor is private, you need binding flags
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic
, null
, new[]{ typeof(string) }
, null);
if (constr == null) {
throw new InvalidOperationException("No constructor");
}
return (TEntityId)constr.Invoke(new object[] {val});
}
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 27357
No, you cannot write a template constraint such as new(string)
instead of simply new()
. You'll have to leverage reflection to get it to work:
public abstract class EntityId<TEntityId>
where TEntityId : EntityId<TEntityId>
{
private readonly System.Guid value;
protected EntityId(string value)
{
this.value = System.Guid.Parse(value);
}
protected EntityId()
{
this.value = System.Guid.NewGuid();
}
public static TEntityId Parse(string value)
{
return (TEntityId)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(TEntityId), new object[] { value });
}
}
Assuming you make the constructor accessible (instead of it currently being private). Note the constraint where TEntityId : EntityId<TEntityId>
- which will ensure we'll only return subclasses of EntityId
Upvotes: 1