3

below is a code example and the question, please note that I can NOT use C# 4.0 and the dynamic keyword.

static class TestClass
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Object o = "Previous value";
        Test(ref o);
        Trace.WriteLine(o);
    }

    static public void Test<T>(ref T obj)
    {
        //  The goal is to somehow invoke Test2 with the real type of obj, i.e the type in obj.GetType() 

        //  1st try:
        Test2(ref obj); // This doesn't work because the type in Test2 will be the same as T here.

        //  2nd try:
        MethodInfo mi = typeof(TestClass).GetMethod("Test2");
        mi = mi.MakeGenericMethod(new Type[] { obj.GetType() });
        mi.Invoke(null, new Object[] { obj }); // obj is no longer by reference so we need to store the object array and copy back the result after the call

        //  3rd try, successful implementation by the smartest mind of stack overflow :)
    }

    static public void Test2<T>(ref T s)
    {
        if (typeof(T) == typeof(String))
        {
            s = (T)(Object)"Hello world!";
        }
    }
}

I also tried some more methods using Delegate.CreateDelegate but without any luck. Is this at all possible?

Edit: I'm not afraid of using a dynamic method (and MSIL assembler) but my knowledge in this area is very limited.

Edit2: Here's an example that is closer to what I really trying to do:

public static class TypeHandler<T>
{
    public delegate void ProcessDelegate(ref T value);

    public static readonly ProcessDelegate Process = Init();

    private static ProcessDelegate Init()
    {
        //  Do lot's of magic stuff and returns a suitable delegate depending on the type
        return null;
    }
}


static class TestClass
{
    static public void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Object o = "Previous value";
        Test(ref o);
        Trace.WriteLine(o);
    }

    static public void Test<T>(ref T obj)
    {
        if (obj is T)
        {
        //  Optimized, common case
            TypeHandler<T>.Process(ref obj);
            return;
        }
        Type t = obj.GetType();
        //  How to call the delegate found in TypeHandler<t>.Process ? (I can get delegate but I can't call it).


    }

}
2
  • it sounds like you shouldn't attempt to use generics. you're using reflection anyway so just lean on that Commented Dec 2, 2011 at 14:09
  • 1
    The fact that you are checking the type of your generic parameter is a red flag. Perhaps generics are not the right thing to be using here. Commented Dec 2, 2011 at 14:17

5 Answers 5

3

Your comment looks like you already understand how to do it:

MethodInfo mi = typeof(TestClass).GetMethod("Test2");
mi = mi.MakeGenericMethod(new Type[] { obj.GetType() });
object[] args = new object[] { obj };
mi.Invoke(null, args);
obj = (T) args[0];

That's really just turning your comment into code. Does that somehow not do what you want?

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

6 Comments

Yes I do know how to it like this (it's the way I do things today), but this is an optimization exercise and I'd like to avoid the by value copy (for value types).
@user1077451: That suggests that performance is important for you. What are your performance goals, and what does the current code reach? (I suspect that dynamic methods could improve things, but I wouldn't go there unless you really have to.)
Good question! I don't have a fixed target but my current working implementation was created as a proof of concept, it works perfectly but it's slow. I'm now rewriting trying to use every trick in the book (my limited book), to achieve the same thing as fast as possible, I'd be happy if I could get things working at 20% of the current performance. In this iteration I also added in more flexibility to the system so I'm not really expect to hit the mark in this iteration. For the next round I will consider using dynamic methods and MSIL, but I first wanted to nail the infrastructure.
I.e: First iteration: Every type is handled in a single function with lot's of if / else statements invoking virtual functions here and there + using reflection in some cases. Second iteration: Do optimize code path per initial type (i.e using a Type to Code lookup). Third iteration: Rewrite code for each case using MSIL (because there are to many cases to handle comfortable by hand).
@user1077451: How much of your current time is spent in this bit of code?
|
2

The main questions, in my opinion is, what do you want to do?

If you just want to assign a string to a reference object you could try this:

Generics can be defined during runtime, but it's not verry comfortable and has to be done by reflection ... in my oppinion it is a "no go", but just an oppinion

Try using the object.GetType() to get the current Type of the Object.

static class TestClass {
    static void Main(string[] args) {
        Object o = "Previous value";
        Test(ref o);
        Console.WriteLine(o);
        Console.ReadLine();
    }

    static public void Test<T>(ref T obj) {
        Object o = (Object)obj;
        Test2(ref o);
        obj = (T)o;
    }

    static public void Test2(ref object s) {
        if (s.GetType().Equals(typeof(String))) {
            s = "Hello world!";
        }
    }
}

5 Comments

This doesn't even compile and isn't close to what I need, if I only needed to work for Object / String types it would be simple enough. I need it to work for any type to any type that implements the other type.
@user1077451: How are you planning to do this without using a giant series of if/else statements? You seem to want to achieve something with generics that they simply aren't good at. (Generics give you same behavior for a variety of types; what you're after appears to be different behavior for different types.)
i updated the code, sorry for that mistake! It now compiles propperly. Why does this code doesn't solve your problem? you can check the type of object in Test2 and decide which object to assign?
I do not wish to enforce Test to only accept a reference to an object, it should work on any type, otherwise I need to copy all value types (after the object changed). Object o = anObjectOfAnyType; Test(ref o); anObjectOfAnyType = o;
Yeah, but will it still print "Hello world"? ;) You need to add a obj = (T)(Object)o; at the end of the Test method...
1

Update 3: OK, since you're fine with an ugly solution, you may want to check out the undocumented __refvalue and __makeref keywords.


It seems your issue is that you want to be able to specify the type for a ref object parameter to be converted or changed to.

The problem with that is that you can't just arbitrarily assign a variable of any type T to a string, for example. So you'd need to pass in a ref object or ref string for that to work at all.

It looks to me like oberfreak nailed down what you were trying to achieve (I originally failed to notice you had initialized o as a string and thus clearly wanted its actual type to influence the behavior of the Test2 function). His answer has the right approach for you.

Update: you mention in a comment that what you're trying to do is have dynamic behavior which could be achieved using a dictionary. I'm guessing that looks something like this?

Update 2: updated this example based on your updated example.

public static class TypeHandler // note: get rid of generic T parameter
{
    delegate void ProcessDelegate(ref object obj); // again, not generic

    static Dictionary<Type, ProcessDelegate> processors = new Dictionary<Type, ProcessDelegate>()
    {
        { typeof(string), (ref object obj) => { obj = "Hello, world!"; } }
        // etc.
    };

    public static void Process(ref object obj)
    {
        processors[obj.GetType()].Invoke(ref obj);
    }
}

That should work. But you can't really achieve the same thing with generics because there's no way to do this (as you know):

//          not allowed
//               |
//          -----------
//         |           |
TypeHandler<o.GetType()>.Process(ref o);

If there were, then you'd be all set. But the only possible way you can do that is by using reflection, which is ugly and expensive for something like this and would clearly defeat your intention of keeping this simple and ensuring good performance.

7 Comments

This is somewhat similar to what I consider, as always my actual problem isn't as simple as the sample. The types I like to support (in Test2) is not static as in your example, rather it's like a Dictionary of Type to "TypeHandler" delegate thingy, then I have someone register what types to handle and with what delegate. Problem is I'm trying to use another approach than to actually use a Dictionary, namely having a static generic class, that has a static field with the delegate (initialized using a static init function). I was hoping to see an improvement in speed over the Dictionary lookup.
But the problem is here you want this class to behave in a certain way based on the actual type of a variable. In this case, o, for example, is a string. But this isn't what generics are based on, which is declared types. In this case that means object for o. So this is why it seems to me personally you are barking up the wrong tree with generics; and I feel oberfreak's answer is actually what's pointing you in the right direction.
Yes I somehow agree with you that generics probably isn't the right way of doing things. I've updated my original question with an example closer to what I'm trying to do.
That is conceptually what I need, problem is that I do not want Test1 to accept a reference to an object (alone), it should accept a reference to any type (or I need to pay the copy of value types again). I know that if there is a solution that doesn't require a copy it's not going to be pretty, but hey this is not a beauty contest, is it? ;)
@user1077451: It's not about being pretty. It's about performance. You simply cannot save on performance by introducing generics and then adding lots of reflection. The reflection overhead will absolutely dwarf the tiny performance gain you get by avoiding the value copies.
|
0

The right way to implement method Test2 would be

static public void Test2<T>(ref T s)
    {
        if (s is string)
        {
            s = (T)(Object)"Hello world!";
        }
}

Or am I missing something here?

Comments

0

If you can change the ref to a regular return, you can cheat massively in 4.0 via dynamic:

dynamic foo = obj;
Test(foo);

that is now:

Test<TheActualTypeOfObj>(obj);

Full example:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    object o = "Previous value";
    o = Test2((dynamic)o);
    Trace.WriteLine(o);
}

static public T Test2<T>(T s)
{
    if (typeof(T) == typeof(string))
    {
        s = (T)(object)"Hello world!";
    }
    return s;
}

which writes "Hello world!"

3 Comments

I know it's easy in 4.0 but as I mentioned I can't use it for this project :(
He did say he can't use the dynamic keyword, though.
@user1077451 ok, didn't spot that - sorry. I'll leave this here, though, just in case it helps someone else with a similar problem and access to 4.0

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.