Let's say I have an object that represents a field of data, that object needs the following properties: Name, Type, Value, Length. Here is the object:
class Field<T>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public Type Type
{
get
{
return typeof(T);
}
}
public int Length { get; set; }
public T Value { get; set; }
}
I have used generics, because I want to force the user of the code to only be able to assign a Value of certain Type.
Now the problem is when I want to create a list of fields.
If I create the list like List<Field<object>>
then we can assign any Value to a given Field on the list, and when we query for Type, we get 'object'.
The thing is - on that list I might want few fields holding strings, few holding ints, dates, and even custom objects that in turn will have a list of Fields...
Is the Generics a good solution for something like that? If yes, how would I go about implementing it? If not, what is a better way?
---EDIT---
Just to add some more background:
1. I might want a list of fields, and each field will hold different data type, like so :
List<Field<object>> lst = new List<Field<object>>();
lst.Add(new Field<string>());
lst.Add(new Field<int>());
lst.Add(new Field<SomeObjectFromMyApp>());
2. Later on I will have to query these objects, and their attributes automaticaly in a loop, something like that:
foreach(Field<object> fld in lst)
{
Type t = fld.Type;
//do some other stuff
}
Yes, generics is a good choice. The key to achieving type-safety (and being identify the type with the
Type
property is to add an abstraction between the list andField<T>
class.Have
Field<T>
implement the interfaceIField
. This interface doesn't need any members.Then declare your list as being
List<IField>
.That way you constrain the list to only contain fields, but each field can be of a different type.
To then read the values later, just do
I suggest you to define an interface and
Field<T>
implements that interfaceso you can write this code:
now this list can contain any object of type
Field<T>
As a few commenters already mentioned, you cannot access the
Type
property if you create an empty Interface, so I would rather do:Then you can check of which datatype the value property is and cast the object to the right type:
The code produces the following output: