Skip to main content

Replacing inheritance by closures

For a long time I have been using inheritance to allow other developers to extend my code.

Imagine I have the following class responsible for managing a unit of work:

   1:  public class UnitOfWork:IUnitOfWork
   2:  {
   3:     public virtual ITransaction CreateTransaction()
   4:     {
   5:        return new Transaction(){TimeOut=new Timespan(0,0,60)};
   6:     }
   7:  }

Important here is the CreateTransaction() method which  just creates a transaction with some default time out settings. Now what if you want to change this timeout value. I could change the implementation so that you can pass some extra settings when calling this method. But the next time I want to add another setting, I have to change my class again. Therefore I made this method virtual allowing the developer to override my default implementation.

The problem is that in this case I find it overkill to create a new class just for changing this one small setting. Another option is the usage of closures.

Nested closure is one of those fancy patterns Martin Fowler first coined and published on his DSL WIP site. His formal definition:

Express statement sub-elements of a function call by putting them into a closure in an argument.

You pass a delegate as a method parameter. The receiving method executes the function represented by that delegate against an object it controls.  Nested closure in C# is easy to spot because the delegate is usually typed as Action<T>, where T is the type of the object that the called method will provide as a parameter to our argument function.

Nested closure is like template method, but instead of deriving from a base class to affect behavior, the additional behavior is provided as an argument.  In the same way that template method is great when you want to communicate behavior from derivations to base classes, nested closure works when you want to communicate behavior as you call a method.

How does this changes my code?

   1:  public class UnitOfWork:IUnitOfWork
   2:  {
   3:     public UnitOfWork()
   4:     {
   5:        this.ConstructTransaction=()=> return new Transaction(){TimeOut=new TimeSpan(0,0,60)};
   6:     }
   7:   
   8:     Func<ITransaction> ConstructTransaction{get;set;}
   9:   
  10:     public ITransaction CreateTransaction()
  11:     {
  12:        return ConstructTransaction();
  13:     }
  14:  }

By exposing the internal code of the CreateTransaction method as a Func<ITransaction> it is possible to override the implementation without the need to inherit from this class. Changing the timeout settings will become as simple as:

   1:  var uow=new UnitOfWork();
   2:  uow.ConstructTransaction=()=> new Transaction(){TimeOut=new TimeSpan(0,0,120)};

Note: if you always want to change the same behavior, embedding the code in an inherited class remains a better alternative.

Popular posts from this blog

Azure DevOps/ GitHub emoji

I’m really bad at remembering emoji’s. So here is cheat sheet with all emoji’s that can be used in tools that support the github emoji markdown markup: All credits go to rcaviers who created this list.

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cleaner switch expressions with pattern matching in C#

Ever find yourself mapping multiple string values to the same result? Being a C# developer for a long time, I sometimes forget that the C# has evolved so I still dare to chain case labels or reach for a dictionary. Of course with pattern matching this is no longer necessary. With pattern matching, you can express things inline, declaratively, and with zero repetition. A small example I was working on a small script that should invoke different actions depending on the environment. As our developers were using different variations for the same environment e.g.  "tst" alongside "test" , "prd" alongside "prod" .  We asked to streamline this a long time ago, but as these things happen, we still see variations in the wild. This brought me to the following code that is a perfect example for pattern matching: The or keyword here is a logical pattern combinator , not a boolean operator. It matches if either of the specified pattern...